Gum-ment cheeze anyone?

ViRedd

New Member
Rules 'hiding' trillions in debt
Liability $516,348 per U.S. household

By Dennis Cauchon
USA TODAY


The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year — far more than the official $248 billion deficit — when corporate-style accounting standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The loss reflects a continued deterioration in the finances of Social Security and government retirement programs for civil servants and military personnel. The loss — equal to $11,434 per household — is more than Americans paid in income taxes in 2006.

"We're on an unsustainable path and doing a great disservice to future generations," says Chris Chocola, a former Republican member of Congress from Indiana and corporate chief executive who is pushing for more accurate federal accounting.

Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later.

The federal government does not follow the rule, so promises for Social Security and Medicare don't show up when the government reports its financial condition.

Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.
Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities. State and local government retirement plans account for much of the rest.

This hidden debt is the amount taxpayers would have to pay immediately to cover government's financial obligations. Like a mortgage, it will cost more to repay the debt over time. Every U.S. household would have to pay about $31,000 a year to do so in 75 years.

The Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Board, which sets federal accounting standards, is considering requiring the government to adopt accounting rules similar to those for corporations. The change would move Social Security and Medicare onto the government's income statement and balance sheet, instead of keeping them separate.

The White House and the Congressional Budget Office oppose the change, arguing that the programs are not true liabilities because government can cancel or cut them.

Chad Stone, chief economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says it can be misleading to focus on the government's unfunded liabilities because Medicare's financial problems overwhelm the analysis.
"There is a shortfall in Medicare and Medicaid that is potentially explosive, but that is related to overall trends in health care spending," he says.

Find this article at:
USATODAY.com
 

ViRedd

New Member
And yet, there are those who would hand over our entire medical system for the federal government to run.

At present we have a multi-tiered medical system. Turning to the single payer system that the socialists want would be a single tiered system run by the government. Single tiered systems are tyranny.

Vi
 

Wold

New Member
Thats just terrible. The dont care now, because whe the shit hits the fan, they will all be good and dead.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Exactly, Wold. And the something-for-nothing crowd will just keep on ignoring the debt in spite of the fact that their great-great-great grandchildren will still be paying it off with stifling taxes.

Vi
 

Wold

New Member
The world's economy is slowley going to plunge, and more and more countires are going to want more and more shit from people who cant pay for it.
 

medicineman

New Member
Exactly, Wold. And the something-for-nothing crowd will just keep on ignoring the debt in spite of the fact that their great-great-great grandchildren will still be paying it off with stifling taxes.

Vi
Like the trillion bucks spent on the wars, that would have bought a lot of Gov-ment cheeze. Either you spend it on helping people or killing people, obviously you prefer the latter, so typical of right wing think, let em starve, we've got wars to fight.
 

suicidesamurai

Well-Known Member
And yet, there are those who would hand over our entire medical system for the federal government to run.

At present we have a multi-tiered medical system. Turning to the single payer system that the socialists want would be a single tiered system run by the government. Single tiered systems are tyranny.

Vi
The less the government is involved in anything, the better.
 

ViRedd

New Member
You mean the Debt created by your conservative heros Vi?
You still don't get it do ya Dank? In refering to the DEBT, we are talking about the ENTIRE national debt ... not the year to year budget, which can go either into a surplus or a defict. The national debt has been growing throughout each administration for generations now. Its made up of unfunded political promises. And by the way, that budget deficit that you and your socialist friends are so fond of blaming Bush for? The increased revenue caused by Bush's tax cuts has just about cut it in half ... and it continues to be reduced as time passes.

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
You still don't get it do ya Dank? In refering to the DEBT, we are talking about the ENTIRE national debt ... not the year to year budget, which can go either into a surplus or a defict. The national debt has been growing throughout each administration for generations now. Its made up of unfunded political promises. And by the way, that budget deficit that you and your socialist friends are so fond of blaming Bush for? The increased revenue caused by Bush's tax cuts has just about cut it in half ... and it continues to be reduced as time passes.

Vi
Prove this. I say it's right wing bullshit. How can you cut Billions in tax income and increase spending by a trillion bucks for wars, Pure bullshit.
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
You still don't get it do ya Dank? In refering to the DEBT, we are talking about the ENTIRE national debt ... not the year to year budget, which can go either into a surplus or a defict. The national debt has been growing throughout each administration for generations now. Its made up of unfunded political promises. And by the way, that budget deficit that you and your socialist friends are so fond of blaming Bush for? The increased revenue caused by Bush's tax cuts has just about cut it in half ... and it continues to be reduced as time passes.

Vi
Vi that argument don't even make any sense. Besides I wasn't just blaming Bush for it, The Republicans had control of both houses for 12 years (thus holding the purse strings) And spent money at a rate that would make Democrats envious. Try again....
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Short term you do have economic growth (and short term tax revenues) when taxes are cut, but this growth isn't sustained long term. If you watch the stock market (which I do daily) it will show that the market becomes more volatile and reactionary.
So yes you do have some prosperity short term, but in the long run the economy collapses.
The trouble with conservative is that they do everything short term and never look at how what they do will effect things long term. Again Vi, try again.

Herbert Hoover said it best, "The Trouble with capitalism are the damned capitalist."
 

medicineman

New Member
I read this and decided that it is right wing goblygook. They are spinning this like a top. You could put fifty economists in a room and everyone of them could come up with different projections. You can't take all the largest tax contriubutors and give them back 25-50% of their taxes and have more tax revenue, it is an impossibility, a spin put up by right wing spinmeisters that have the most to gain from tax cuts. I call bullshit on this one. Where does the extra tax revenue come from, the ether? Not only are the largest contributors contributing less, the corporations are getting tax breaks for offshoring jobs, and offshoring their corporate headquarters like Haliburton to even pay less corporate taxes. Pure Bullshit. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool me.
 

ViRedd

New Member
I read this and decided that it is right wing goblygook. They are spinning this like a top. You could put fifty economists in a room and everyone of them could come up with different projections. You can't take all the largest tax contriubutors and give them back 25-50% of their taxes and have more tax revenue, it is an impossibility, a spin put up by right wing spinmeisters that have the most to gain from tax cuts. I call bullshit on this one. Where does the extra tax revenue come from, the ether? Not only are the largest contributors contributing less, the corporations are getting tax breaks for offshoring jobs, and offshoring their corporate headquarters like Haliburton to even pay less corporate taxes. Pure Bullshit. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool me.
Well, you must have missed the link to the Federal Reserve.

If you save large tax contributors tax dollars, those saved dollars are not put under the matress, Med. They are put back into the economy in the form of capital improvments and investments. That's where the increased tax revenue comes from. Its simple economics.

Vi
 
Top