Boomergeddon Watch: We’re Right on Track

by James A. Bacon

The U.S. national debt has passed a symbolically important milestone of $30 trillion. That’s up from the $13-$14 trillion when I wrote my book, “Boomergeddon,” in 2010 warning that the U.S. government was heading to functional insolvency by the late 2020’s or early 2030’s. I argued that higher deficits and debt were inevitable as Republicans and Democrats in Congress followed the path of least political resistance — more spending and lower taxes. The U.S. is careening toward certain fiscal crisis by 2033, when the trust fund for the Social Security system runs dry and payments to retirees are slashed to 76% of promised benefits.

One thing I did not take sufficiently into account in Boomergeddon was the resurgence in inflation caused by monetization of the debt. I thought the political class had learned its lesson from the 1970’s era of stagflation (stagnant growth + inflation), and would hold inflation in check. Higher inflation allowed government to repay its debt with cheaper dollars for a time, but investors demanded higher interest rates to offset that erosion plus they added a premium for uncertainty. The inflation rate in 1980 hit 13.5% and the federal funds rate peaked at 20%. Forty years later, it appears that those lessons have been forgotten. The Consumer Price Index rose 7% last year. And while it could subside, it will remain far higher than the 2% targeted by the Federal Reserve Bank.

The U.S. is now in a fiscal/monetary box.

Right now investors in Treasury instruments are being pillaged. Yields on one-year treasuries are 0.78%. Yields on 10-years are 1.81%, and on 30-years 2.12%. Investors will not long be willing to lose an inflation-adjusted 5% to 6% yearly on their supposedly safe-harbor investments. Let us imagine what will happen if interest payments on the federal debt increased by a mere two percentage points across the board.

The math is more complicated than saying that 2% of $30 trillion is $600 billion. That $600 billion in added interest payments won’t kick in right way. Only newly-issued debt would pay the new, high interest rates. Old debt won’t incur higher rates until it matures and has to be reissued at current market prices. About one-fifth of the federal debt matures in one year or less. Another two-fifths matures within one to five years, and the rest over five to 30 years. So, there’s a buffer. Still, the climb of higher payments on the debt is relentless and it is gargantuan.

Here’s the 2021 Congressional Budget Office projection of federal budget deficits measured as a percentage of the economy:

The light blue shading shows interest payments on the national debt growing relentlessly as a share of the economy. The bigger the share taken by interest payments — which cannot be cut without triggering an immediate fiscal crisis — the less latitude Uncle Sam has to cut spending. Eventually, deficits, the national debt and interest payments on that debt accumulate on auto-pilot without regard to Congressional action. At that point, the arithmetic of compounding interest takes over.

Alarmingly, this graph is optimistic: the CBO assumes inflation of 2.1% to 2.3% (depending upon the method used to calculate it) from 2021 to 2031. The CBO also assumes interest rates of only 1.5% for all federal debt held by the public during that period. With inflation running at 7%, that assumption is highly fragile. And it assumes a steady-state economy with no recessions between now and then.

How all this works out is difficult to predict. On the one hand, a 7% inflation rate means we’ll be repaying that $30 trillion debt with cheaper dollars. On the other hand, interest payments on the debt will swell with higher inflation and interest rates demanded by investors. Whether that’s a net gain or loss for Uncle Sam will depend on investor psychology. If fear of inflation gets worse, investors could demand a risk premium, meaning that interest rates could shoot higher than the inflation rate by itself would suggest.

Even in the absence of an investor revolt, the proverbial doo-doo will hit the swirling blade by 2033, when the Social Security Trust Fund runs out and payments drop to 76% of promised benefits, the level supported by revenues generated by payroll taxes. Unfortunately, Congress will have limited ability to make up the difference with more deficit spending. According to the CBO’s optimistic forecast, the primary deficit (spending exceeding revenue) will be 4% of the GDP that year, while interest payments on the debt will be 3%. The total deficit will be 7% of GDP. Remember, that’s the optimistic scenario.

With the population older and more dependent upon federal transfer payments than ever, once Social Security slashes its payout, the U.S. will experience massive social, economic and political dislocations not seen since the Great Depression.

Policy at the federal level is largely irrelevant now. The U.S.S. Titanic is running on autopilot on a collision course with the iceberg. So, what happens in 2033 when we collide? With federal finances in chaos, power will devolve to the states. Will Virginia be prepared? Will state and local governments be able to take up the slack? Or will they be mired in local fiscal crises of their own making?


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

70 responses to “Boomergeddon Watch: We’re Right on Track”

  1. VaNavVet Avatar

    My prediction is that Congress will act to shore up the Social Security Trust fund. There seems to be a belief that one strong year or two of economic growth will help to bring the debt under control. Clearly, it is not a matter of concern for either political party.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Chickens coming home to roost: Low birth rates and our inability to reach a reasonable compromise on immigration, which also would bring in more younger workers to feed the SS Trust Fund. They never use that argument to persuade the nativists who freak out over immigration, legal or otherwise.

      1. killerhertz Avatar
        killerhertz

        I think a massive recession is inevitable with the current situation the Fed has put us in. If so, immigration is going to be drastically reduced. I don’t see birth rates improving given the political climate and inflationary pressure, which impacts the ability to buy a house, start a family, etc. The fund is screwed.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        Yeah, but if we let non-Americans in , they’ll breed and outnumber us in a few years … and American will no longer be the America we want!

      3. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        The mistake was attempting to eliminate undocumented workers. Back in the 90s a Monsanto plant, Georgia I think, had 400 workers on one SSN.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar

          And your point is? With SS verification these days the illegals have individual SS numbers. They will not collect SS any more than the 400 on one number would years ago because they are still illegal. It’s free money for the SSA, but because it’s low wages it won’t be enough to float the SS Trust Fund.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      I think there is somewhat of a misunderstanding WRT to SS Trust fund. The current trust fund was created under Ronald Reagan to build up a reserve over and above normal FICA tax receipts as a way to smooth changes that would be needed when demographics evolved.

      Even if the current Trust Fund would be totally exhausted, existing FICA tax revenues would be able to pay about 75% of current pay-outs without any changes (like raising the retirement age) or making higher incomes susceptible to FICA tax.

      https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2020/10-myths-explained.html#:~:text=Myth%20%231%3A%20Social%20Security%20is,not%20run%20out%20of%20money.&text=It%20will%20still%20collect%20tax,according%20to%20the%20latest%20estimate.

    3. Donald Smith Avatar
      Donald Smith

      “There seems to be a belief that one strong year or two of economic growth will help to bring the debt under control.”

      Um, WHO exactly believes that?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        The people we vote for.

      2. VaNavVet Avatar

        Many noted economists take that view as the debt is only about 7% of GDP. Oh, the Trump admin also used that argument but paying for the 2017 tax cuts and we know how that turned out. There has been a waning of concern about the debt over the past decade or so.

    4. Lefty665 Avatar

      SS was one of the rare things Alan Greenspan did right. His fix was really simple. SS stayed solvent for the long term as long as 90% of wages were subject to FICA taxes.

      Since 1983 wages have skewed way to the top and taxable wages have fallen to a little more than 80% of total wages. That’s why the trust fund runs out in a decade.

      Neither party has been willing to raise the FICA limit to capture the increasing amount that would constitute 90% of wages. It would offend the bi-partisan neo-liberal elites, so every year we fall further and further behind.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        The Trust Fund is not what primarily funds SS.

        FICA taxes fund SS. The “trust’ fund is a fund first created during Ronald Reagan’s tenure when FICA taxes were raised higher than needed to fund current payouts. The purpose was to build up a fund that would be used later on to smooth a transition necessitated by demographics.

        The trust fund could go to zero and FICA taxes collected would continue to pay SS, albeit at about 75% because of evolving demographics – and “wages” as you point out.

        There is a 3rd thing hurting SS and that is the use of independent contractors instead of employees. Only 1/2 of FICA taxes are collected because the employer does not pay FICA taxes for independent contractors, only the worker does.

        Here’s a factual explanation of the Trust Funds;

        https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/understanding-the-social-security-trust-funds-0

        1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
          energyNOW_Fan

          The main demographic driver to realize on SS is that USA has gone from parents averaging 3 kids to less than 2. So we either have to reduce SS payouts (Repub solution) or increase the amount paid in, by about 2034 (Dem solution).

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Haven’t read that but have read that people living longer – which means SS paying out benefits longer – is an issue – as it would be with any annuity.

            Back when the trust fund was created under Reagan – the living longer thing was a known issue and they increased FICA on purpose to collected more than was needed for payouts – and that’s how the Trust Fund got created and over time , built up to what it is today.

            But each year, people would live a little long and payouts were more than year before and less money went into trust fund – until – no money was going into trust fund and they started taking money out of it to cover the shortfalls between FICA collected and SS pay outs. This was the time-frame when it was thought, changes would be made, adjustments to deal with the issue of living longer and other issues like less workers paying into it, more independent contractors, and the cap on income subject to FICA (don’t think it’s inflation adjusted”.

            It’s a solvable problem but may take actions from Congress on some things.

            once again – SS is not a retirement fund, it’s an insurance annuity. It pays benefits no matter how long or short you live and no matter how much you paid into it – that’s the way most annuities work – like some employer pensions (which are really annuities because the payments stop when you die).

          2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
            energyNOW_Fan

            A few years ago I saw a memorable presentation from the SS Admin’s top actuary. Jim would not let me post an article on it, due to non-Virginia subject. SS 2034 issue is simply a birth rate issue. Pre-COVID anyways, that was the main issue.

            Of course the sticky issue of “what to do about it” is explosive, divisive, partisan arguments.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            of late, JAB allows tenuous connections to Virginia, it seems to me…. I expect him to weigh in on the
            SCOTUS “affirmative action” deal…

        2. Lefty665 Avatar

          The “Trust Fund” is the excess of FICA collections plus interest in excess of expenditures. And yes Greenspan designed SS taxes to accumulate an excess that would fund us Boomers when we retired. We prepaid our benefits, or at least it was designed that way. Failure to increase the FICA limit to maintain 90% of wages as FICA taxable leaves us with funding running short of scheduled benefits in about a decade.

          You are wrong in your “3rd thing”. When individuals, aka independent contractors, report self employment income they pay both halves of FICA. The “employer” saves their tax amount, but the individual pays the price. Since the tax code also provides individuals a tax credit for 1/2 of self employment FICA paid SSA is made whole while the general funds collected by the IRS take the hit.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            You are correct about the SE tax. I got that wrong. And I see your point about paying your share of the excess FICA – “up front” but I doubt seriously the extra you paid actually is enough to maintain SS at current levels. Can you clarify your point ” Failure to increase the FICA limit to maintain 90% of wages”?

  2. PassTheBuckBureaucrat Avatar
    PassTheBuckBureaucrat

    what happens in 2033?

    Ask any GenX’r: UFOs!

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      In 2033, with no changes, SS will be entirely funded by collected FICA taxes and it will not be enough pay at 100% of scheduled benefits but rather at 75%. This is primarily because people live longer now than when SS was created and it was structured on people dying at a much earlier age than now.

      SS is not a retirement fund. It’s an Insurance Annuity. It will pay benefits as long as you live, no matter how much you put into the fund and it will stop paying when you die, even if you paid more into the fund that you got out.

      In addition, benefits are adjusted for inflation. Try to buy a private sector annuity that does that and see what it costs.

      It also will provide benefits if you become disabled and will pay benefits to your spouse and kids, if you die or become disabled.

  3. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    What happens? Six more weeks of winter.

    But on the subject, Steve saw his shadow and pulled the covers back over his head and we’re in for six years more of RGGI.

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Reagan did a wonderful thing. He put in place the cap. He actually created two income trajectories workers can use for calculating retirement savings.

    Given a single person working at the cap for 40 years and another at minimum wage, who will draw max and min SocSec benefits respectively, you can determine a good percentage of income needed in an IRA at 4% to retire at 100%. It’s about 6% of income for both.

  5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    What really matters is debt as a percentage of gdp which has been dropping since Q2 2020.

    1. Randy Huffman Avatar
      Randy Huffman

      First, that measure is debt held by Public, which ignores the debt bought Government agencies, and is went from 50% in 2010, to 80% of GDP pre-pandemic, to 100% after. Its sliding only due to technical factors, not because of any level of getting control over it:

      https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYGFGDQ188S

      But is forecasted to rise again, to over 106% within ten years.

      https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-07/57218-Outlook.pdf

      By any measure, we are in serious trouble.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        much less that many if not most other countries. The US treasury note is still the Gold Standard worldwide.

        1. Randy Huffman Avatar
          Randy Huffman

          How in the world can you blow off our massive debt and projected annual deficit? Did you look at the CBO projections, back to $1.8 Trillion in annual deficits ten years from now, and that was before the last “infrastructure bill”, and before any future spending they are going to try and ram through.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            No. It’s significant but both party’s attitudes towards it has apparently changed and no longer consider it the boogeyman they once did – and part of that has to do with the idea that the U.S. Treasury note has not been abandoned, quite the contrary – it’s favored over most other country’s debt.

            JAB’s boomergeddon premise was somewhat based on the idea that those who held US notes would
            abandon them and we’d have to pay higher and higher interest to get buyers. That does not seem to
            have happened.

            We started down this path when Trump/GOP gave tax cuts but paid for them with debt. Then COVID came along and all discipline went down the tubes.

            The Dems love spending and the GOP hates taxes and loves tax-cuts even when not paid for.

            How’s that?

          2. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            I agree many, many Republicans have no problem with our debt/deficit to either push through tax cuts, or spend on Defense. The ones who are trying to rein it in are generally in the Freedom Caucus, along with Rand Paul, and they are labeled “extremists” by the media.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            Well, they strike me as extremists… like reverting to a gold standard or getting rid of the Fed, etc…
            Many folks have not noticed, but Medicare went up substantially this year. And there are significant efforts
            to convince those on Medicare to switch to Medicare Advantaged – which is managed care and because the providers have to use the same medical record , better care, better outcomes and lower costs are likely.

            Right now, the economy is so messed up that most economists think it will take some time to get back to some normal where cuts can be made and taxes increased – yes that will have to happen if we want to cut the deficit/debt.

          4. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Hmmm, I don’t think either are on a Freedom Caucus platform. I do think they would say the fed has too much power

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            I don’t know their positions but their membership has some pretty radical members on it… IMHO. i’m no fan of Jordan, Gatez, Green, Gomert and others. They’re pretty much bomb-throwers IMHO and yes, they will probably take over the House in the midterms.

          6. Lefty665 Avatar

            So nice to see you’ve drunk the Medicare Advantage kool aid. Did it taste good?

            “better care, better outcomes and lower costs are likely” That’s certainly not what it looks like every year when we compare Medicare options. Please share some of what you’ve been smoking.

            That goes too with referring to US Treasuries and a Gold Standard in the same breath. You need to get out more. Better learn to say Yuan too.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            Medicare Advantage is managed care which usually means the providers all share your medical record – as opposed to each provider keeping their own record of you. When there is a single medical record, all the providers know ALL your drugs, your medical history, your current treatment, etc – not unlike the VA operates with veterans.

            You have to remember, Medicare is insurance and any insurance you buy, they decide the benefits, co-pays, etc, not you. Basic Medicare only pays 80%. You have to do something for the remaining 20% which means private sector insurance of some kind of which Medicare Advantage is one choice.

            Gold Standard = rejected by virtually every modern-day economist.

            US Treasuries – “gold standard” for Nations currencies.

            Good, bad or ugly – (and it is ugly), US treasuries are considered super safe even if they pay way less than other investments. That’s where some investors “park” their money when the economy is wonky or weak.

            try this: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex-currencies/092316/how-us-dollar-became-worlds-reserve-currency.asp

          8. Lefty665 Avatar

            It must be really nice on whatever planet you live on.

            Things should be so simple as to say just share your records and viola everything is miraculously hunky dory.

            Your example of the VA as the very epitome of exemplary medical care is delusional to the point of being deranged. Our Vets deserve much much better care than we give them.

            Medicare plus a medigap plan to pick up the excess cost every year proves for me and my wife to be a clearly better choice than Medicare Advantage plans that pay a for profit return to their investors.

            Treasuries have historically been safe investments. Hold onto your hat as we transit (how long is a transit) high inflation. Better cross your fingers that we don’t piss off the Chinese to the point they decide to dump the $1T +/- in Treasuries they hold. Better also watch as we push the Russians, Chinese et al to create alternatives to the dollar as international currencies. Like I said, better learn how to say Yuan.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar

            universal records are the standard in almost all other industrialized counties – most all of which ave longer life expectancies than the US.

            Not magical and not miraculous but the data is compelling. When different providers see your drugs, your history, your current treatments, less mistakes are made and more knowledge is gained on how to proceed.

            Your “Medigap” policy is essentially also subsidized by the govt. if it was true private
            sector insurance based on medical underwriting – they’d likely not insure you at all or it
            would cost far more than policies for younger and healthier folks.

            you’ll have to provide some facts to back up your assertions about our veterans.

            And the china/russia treasuries boogeyman has been around for decades and is a durable
            canard but little else. I’m NOT arguing in favor of high debt but I AM pointing out
            that so far, US Treasury notes are preferred over most other countries AND some market investments
            when the market is risky. That could change but so far has not… so your boogeyman is just that at this
            point.

            you’ll have to provide some facts to back up your assertions about our veterans.

            And the china/russia treasuries boogeyman has been around for decades and is a durable
            canard but little else. I’m NOT arguing in favor of high debt but I AM pointing out
            that so far, US Treasury notes are preferred over most other countries AND some market investments
            when the market is risky. That could change but so far has not… so your boogeyman is just that at this
            point.

            and all that ‘deranged” blather… geeze guy…. surely you can do better!

          10. LarrytheG Avatar

            You have to realize, most people would not have insurance at all, even private sector insurance, if it were not for te government requirement insurance companies to do it. If insurance companies were allowed to use medical underwriting, the old and sick would not be insured at all by many insurers or it would cost 5-10 times as much as for a young and healthy person.

          11. Lefty665 Avatar

            and your point is?

            Insurance companies existed long before government even dreamed of regulating them. Pray tell, please give me an example of where a domestic government has required an insurance company to provide policies in a state where the insurer chose not to vend.

            I still want you to share some of what you’re smoking.

          12. LarrytheG Avatar

            all employer-provided insurance is required to offer insurance to all employees regardless of their health status and for similar premiums per class group.

            If insurance companies were allowed to use medical underwriting, they’d not write insurance for many who are older or sick or if they did it would cost far more than it would for younger and healthy.

            This is a govt law.

            Government also subsidizes employer-providing insurance by not taxing the money spent on it. It is, in fact, the largest tax expenditure in the US Budget:

            https://budget.house.gov/sites/democrats.budget.house.gov/files/documents/10largest.png

            I don’t smoke guy but you might could use some help on your ignorance.

          13. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Well, denying emergency funding to hurricane victims and such is extreme.

          14. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            “Deficits don’t matter.”

            Tax and spend, or Borrow and spend. Pick one.

          15. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            I have no love for Republicans who borrow and spend. But lets be real, we are in this massive issue principally because of Democrats. Want a real life example? They screamed that the 2017 tax cut was going to massively increase the deficit. Then they took over in 2020, crickets……

            Later, they created a massive spending bill cleverly called build back better, and how are they going to pay for it? Generally by restoring the 2017 tax cuts. What a fraud.

            Republican’s borrow and spend. Democrats tax, borrow and spend, and blame Republicans.

          16. LarrytheG Avatar

            well – the blame goes both ways. Dems have pretty much always liked to spend and the GOP USED to try to keep the budgets under control. But the GOP abandoned that under Trump and did not pay for the tax cuts with spending cuts.

            The other thing we need to acknowledge is that we spend more on Defense than the next 10 countries in the world – COMBINED.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d79cbfd3deed7933f0bce9b87d07436de2e0393427f431d12a994c92e27263de.jpg

          17. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            The problem might not be the West spends too much, but that we are carrying the load. As to China, does anyone in their right mind think they are only spending what this chart shows? This is a communist country, I have no faith they have the same standards of fiscal transparency, and decency in how they treat their soldiers, as we do.

            Ill close here, but putting aside who is more at fault, we got a serious problem. Too many people on both sides are either not paying attention, or making excuses. Thanks Jim for highlighting this topic.

          18. LarrytheG Avatar

            we might quibble about how much China spends but no question how much we spend.

            Do you know how much we take in – in revenues in the US ( not counting FICA taxes) ?

            I’m thinking it’s about 2 trillion, right?

            https://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/Understanding-the-budget-revenue-chart-1.jpg

          19. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            This group is referencing the same CBO update report I initially highlighted in my comments, see page 2 for a summary:

            https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-07/57218-Outlook.pdf

            CBO issues their annual report in the Spring sometime, I believe its after the President issues their OMB budget which used to come out in February. Anyway those documents will get into a lot more detail, and will reflect the latest figures for the infrastructure bill which is not in these numbers as it was passed afterwards.

            To answer your question, and putting aside 2020 or 2021 (lots of COVID related spending, and less income), fiscal 2022 which is pretty well already passed, shows individual income taxes of $2.3 Trillion, and corporate taxes of $300+Billion. You add in revenue payroll taxes and other taxes such as excise, estate, etc. I believe the annual “cost” of the 2017 tax act is less than $200 Billion per annum.

          20. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            I just realized the charts you linked were also 2022, they showed the same total revenue as in the report I linked.

          21. LarrytheG Avatar

            yeah, but you’re not focusing on our issue, here… our deficit/debt. Are you okay with it if it’s because we spend it on Defense? If we support it , shouldn’t we pay for it instead of putting it on the credit card?

          22. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            You do realize what you are looking at above is the discretionary budget only, it does not include the mandated budget. In 2022, total revenues are estimated at $4.4 Trillion, Discretionary expenditures $1.65 Trillion, Mandatory (described above) $3.6 Trillion, interest (at historic low rates,. about to change) .3 Trillion, deficit $1.1 Trillion. You could go 100% pacifist and defund the Defense Department, and we will still have a deficit.

            My other point, Defense has not grown exponentially, in the ten year forecast I sent before, the discretionary spending only grows to $1.8 Trillion by 2031, but the mandatory spending grows to $5 Trillion.

            Overall, would I be willing to pay more taxes, or suggest we trim Defense, to pay down the deficit? Sure. But Dem’s will not do that, they are pushing and pushing to grow Spending, when we cant even afford our current programs!

          23. LarrytheG Avatar

            right. it would be good to see a graphic of the total budget – discretionary and mandated, no? I’m not advocating ‘pacifist”, just pointing out that Defense is a significant expense and ought not be funded by debt. I’m sure you agree. can you lay out the major categories on the mandated budget? I know Medicare is significant. I believe, by law, the govt/taxpayers pay 75% of Medicare and subscribers 25%.
            Should we change that so that subscribers pay much more? I never expect the Dems to ‘pay down” but I did expect the GOP to…. and now…. no one… right?

          24. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Medicare, Medicaid and Social security are by far the largest categories, but any kind of Government transfer payment. I cant dig now as I am heading out, but it is laid out in the comprehensive CBO budgets. Here is a brief article I found in CBO website. https://www.cbo.gov/content/what-difference-between-mandatory-and-discretionary-spending

            Have a good weekend.

          25. LarrytheG Avatar

            you too. thanks. remember SS is funded from FICA no income taxes.

          26. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            yes but Fica taxes can’t cover it much longer, same as Medicare (which has deeper issues). Gotta go. .

          27. LarrytheG Avatar

            …unless they change FICA which they are supposed to do – as opposed to start funding it from general revenues.

            but the main point is to not confuse FICA/SS with the rest of the budget because it is separate. Focus on the main revenues for the main budget because in essence SS is paid for already with earmarked taxes that cannot be used for anything else.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar

    Where are current treasury bill buyers going to switch to that is safer/as safe and more lucrative or better than inflation?

    Bitcoin?

  7. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    I remember when the 3 trillion of debt in 1990 seemed out of control. What will it be in another 30 years? Debt clock from 1990:
    https://usdebtclock.org/1990.html

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      yeah, that was back when the GOP were more fiscal conservatives that culture conservatives! Not a peep out of most of them these days.

      1. how_it_works Avatar
        how_it_works

        Before the “War on Terruh”?

          1. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Before the military adventures around the world that started in the early 2000s.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            oh.. the War on TERROR! 😉 yeah that..

          3. Our military adventures around the world started way before the early 2000s.

            I’m making no statements or judgements on the right or wrong of any U.S. military interventions in foreign countries, but this link provides a long list, which starts in 1798.

            https://archive.globalpolicy.org/us-westward-expansion/26024-us-interventions.html

          4. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            From what I recall reading, the military adventures part of the War On Terror are the biggest contribution to the national debt to date.

          5. Good point. We should be asking all the other countries we protect to pay their fair share of the costs

          6. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            $5T off the books.

      2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        You know when I raised this issue in class with the students they were in favor of kicking the can down the road. Why not? We did it to them!

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          well, because they’re kids still, not adults… although these days it’s sometimes hard to
          tell the difference….

    2. Lefty665 Avatar

      Seems sort of naive now doesn’t it? But we were much younger then.

      National debt from 1787 to 1981 was about $1T, and that includes all the wars! When Reagan left office it was about the $3T you stated. If I recall correctly, it was the tripling of national debt in 8 years that was scary and seemed out of control.

  8. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Explains it all. Dated but on target….
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I5QwKEwo4Bc

Leave a Reply