Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion

[RamboLiberal]

Source: 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.



Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-28-federal-budget_N.htm

[Erika]

1. Two-thirds of baby boomers will have only their SS to live on

when they are no longer able to work.

You going to throw them out in the street?

[benh57]

3. Yes - Hoovervilles

Maybe they will call them Bushvilles this time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooverville

[Javaman]

48. Or bush*huts. nt

[The Doctor.]

4. Build Geritentiaries.

The breaking of America is nearly complete.

[Erika]

5. The Great American Experience seems to have failed

We've become old Britain where the select few held all the power and enjoyed all the benefits.

[lefador]

6. We are actually worse than old Britain regarding wealth distribution...

We are pretty much back to pre 1929 levels of wealth distribution, this is the top 1% now own 25% of the wealth. Before 1980 the top 1% controlled roughly 8%, so thanks to Reaganomics they have tripled their share. If you do the math, you can figure out how much the rest of the 99% have had their relative share reduced by.

The past half century we saw a relentless effort by the GOP to undo the new deal, I guess their motive was simple: they wanted a return to the status quo before 1929. So congratulations assholes, it obviously worked so fucking great that they want second servings. Incidentally, it was the secretary of the treasure under Hoover who was an staunch supply-side economist and one of the early proposers of the "trickle-down" economic theory. It worked so fucking great that Reagan gave it a second try, since the recession under Bush I was not enough (most people have forgotten the level of deep shit our economy was in)... Bush II gave it a third whirl. As they say, third is a charm... so here we are, back to pre-1929 wealth distribution levels, basically 75 years of progress down the drain, because a bunch of assholes just want more than their fair share.

I guess the republican MO is: if it fails one time, repeat enough times until it success or destroys the whole planet... which is not big deal because since they believe in the rapture that is also a success. No wonder they despise the scientific method of trial and error, i.e. you try and if it fails, you move to a another approach. So here we are, full steam ahead into the abyss. Whooohoooo!!!

Incidentally, there was a study long ago (I have to find a reference) that tracked the distribution of wealth and revolutions. There was a clear correlation between the 1% owning more than 20% and a revolution ensuing through history. Thus, the 1-20 threshold was observed through the Russian revolution, the French revolution, the fall of the Roman empire (which was not a single internal event though), the bankruptcy of the Spanish crown, etc. Ironically the US passed that threshold 15+ yrs ago. So two things can be going on here, either Americans are one of the most patient people on Earth, or they are one of the dumbest lazies motherfuckers in history. I mean, some American kids are willing to fight half a world away in the sand for some nebulous idea of liberating some people that never attacked us, but when it comes to defend their own interests -i.e. they are earning less than their fathers, having to work more for less pay, and no economic future whatsoever at the current debt rate- they are quite passive, disorganized, and frankly they display such an apathy that is either genetic, or the end product of a brillian campaign of devolution by the ruling oligarchies.

:-(

[formercia]

7. When we send our best and brightest to die in some foreign shit-hole

it doesn't improve the gene pool one iota. Combine that with rampant inbreeding among the Uber Klasse and you have a self-destructive mix.

[CRH]

60. Wrong, our best and our brightest don't enlist to be a soldier, ...

the majority of our best and brightest strive to become CEO's and entrepreneurs and when successful never look back. They then become the next top ten percent, and then conservative republicans, to whom sharing wealth and returning to the system that allowed their fortune, is such a quaint pedestrian experience that is soon forgotten after giving a pittance to charity. And any gift must be rewarded by a tax break or incentive, to collect more wealth. It is the sad reality of hyper capitalism with no imposed restrictions, and the immorality bred by survival of the fittest or fattest in an economic exercise tilted toward the heritage of money.

The sad reality is the present system does not allow liveable future for the person of average or less intelligence or talent, there is no consideration for the blue collar work that keeps the society moving. Once the building block of wealth, the blue collar worker now, once used up, is considered a liability to the society existing only as a drag on the entitlement system.

[formercia]

62. An example of inbreeding

Prescott>HW>Junior, each successive generation expressing more malevolent traits than the last. It's like breeding meanness into dogs.

[CRH]

66. From that light, agreed. n/t

[unblock]

9. i hear you on wealth distribution -> revolution, but 15 years is not a long time

the rich have done their homework well. they have given the rest of us ipos and lotteries; patriotism and war; maury and judge judy.

the give us the feeling that we can become rich, that we can take pride in what we are, and that we are superior to others.

oh and they give us gay-bashing and atheist-bashing and other forms of bigotry, cuz everybody's gotta have a little hate to make it through such times.


such concentrated distributions are not long sustained without resistance, but they have the initial controls well in hand. i do not think a revolution, french-style or otherwise, is imminent. a slow, gradual decay a la roman empire seems more likely.

actually, even more likely given the global mobility is that the rich simply decide at some point that america is no longer the place to be and they all move to russia or europe or who knows and pick the carcass of the u.s. clean, destroying it in their wake.

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. Also, keep in mind the Russian Revolution didn't just happen in

1917. It ran from the 1880s, to near success and total defeat in 1905 and was not able to rise again until the troops on the eastern (to our eyes) front mutinied.

THAT is why the oligarchs consider peace groups to be dangerous and on a level with terrorists - they know that without the military on their side they don't have a chance at hanging onto power.

We have too large a middle class to, at this point, to expect a paroxysm of revolution as in the French or Russion revolutions, but the 1% will not willingly release their grip - it might take a generation, or even a couple, but there will be an adjustment and it won't be pretty.

As for them picking up and moving to Bahrain, I say fine - abscond with your ill-gotten gains. Wealth comes from the people, and the people will still be here when the looters are gone. All we need to do is figure a way to KEEP them out.

[jwirr]

41. Your last paragraph actually sounds hopeful to me. That is the

only way that we are going to be able to make survival living work. Many of us are beginning to build the lifestyle that will help us through the coming climatic changes etc. but almost every change is somehow retarded by the big corps. My family is getting their homes set up for gardening, heating and other needed areas of survival but I realize that doing that in rural Minnesota is much easier than doing it in a city. Revolution? In the cities it may be the only way to go. The rich should study the habits of a cornered rat.

[Skink]

2. This is good.

New world order unite.

[file83]

74. Ever get the feeling someone is trading our futures like we are cattle?

"Oh, sure we're good for the money...those Americans are hard workers! If they don't produce for you, you get to keep them!"

:cry:

moooo.

[formercia]

93. A cash crop

to be milked on a regular basis, then sent to slaughter when there's no more milk to be had.

[Auntie Bush]

94. Cattle futures?

[formercia]

95. There is no future

on this path.

[Jim Lane]

8. Another belated conversion

Chris Chocola, now out of office, and viewing the state of the budget with a Democratic majority in Congress, has discovered that there's a problem.

So, Chris, would you point us to the speeches you made, and even better to the actions you took, when you were in a position to do something about the situation? or did you, perhaps, join the other Bushbots in voting for the tax cuts for the rich and the spending on a disastrous war?

[ClintonTyree]

10. There's only one way to get ourselves out of this mess.....

and that's to make Bush's tax cuts permanent and, to REALLY attack this problem, introduce a whole new round of tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Only then will the benefits "trickle down" to the vast majority of Americans. The economy will become hyper-stimulated creating countless millions of good paying jobs to swell the tax base and alleviate this temporary glitch.

Really. I'm not kidding.

OK, I'm kidding but this "strategy" is no doubt being discussed in some CONservative "think tanks" around the country. It's all they know how to do. The CONS are succeeding in their plan to bankrupt the country and do away with all of those pesky "entitlement" social programs. :grr:

[Enthusiast]

11. That's it!

They continually advance these tax cuts as the way to prosperity. At the same time they whine about the cost of these entitlements. It's pretty clear to anyone with half a brain. While they whine about these terrible entitlements they never mention the cost of the Iraq war or defense spending in general. Greedy fucks!

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. Those morons still haven't figured out that those social programs

that Roosevelt set up staved off a revolution. He saved democracy, because the contenders then were the communists and the fascists, and absent what he gave us one or the other would have seized power by the 40s.

[AnOhioan]

12. Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion

Source: 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.

snip

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.

snip

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.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-28-federal-budget_N.htm

[bananas]

13. Let's take the skinheads bowling.

(Quote from Camper van Beethoven)

[Giant Robot]

96. I thought that was from

The Dead Milkmen?

[acmavm]

14. Gee, I wonder why. The people we put in office and send to Washington

are fiscal morans. And I surely hope that they're not including the richest 5% of the population. They get the best and the most out of this country and proportionately pay the least. It's all been put on the middle/lower classes backs.

This is not the government the Founding Fathers intended for this country. Not republican or democratic. This is not the country that they thought they were founding.

I read once where the average life of any great 'empire' was two hundred years. Everything that has happened since the Reagan years has validated that statement.

[Jim Warren]

16. Not morans

I'd say they are pretty savvy. The get to spend money that's not theirs and they get paid to do it. Bankrupt the national treasury in the name of liberty. (For as long as they can get away with it)

[acmavm]

22. No, I mean morans. They're biting the hands that feed them.

They are also destroying the very system that their children and grandchildren will have to grow up under. Do they seriously think that they can maintain their privileged status if everything falls down around them? Do they think they will be able to maintain their privileged status with a populace that has nothing to lose because they've (the dems in government) allowed it all to be stripped away?

I mean morans.

[FatDave]

57. You're expecting conservatives to think of the future?

Seriously, when has that ever happened? It's only ever about them, right now. There is no one else to be concerned with and I'll woryy about the future when it gets here.

[Fire Walk With Me]

61. Didn't stop Marcos from owning thousands of pairs of shoes.

If you plan to live like kings and queens, you need a tax base, and little more. If you have billions of dollars, you can establish your lifestyle, and that of your children, in any manner you wish. There is some 17% unemployment in oil-rich Arabia, and it doesn't seem to bother the extremely rich Arabians, to the best of my limited knowledge.

Bush and the International Oil Monopoly are not stupid. They are reshaping the world economy, and we are at the bottom of the new wealth structure.

[merwin]

23. The same could be said during the great depression...

This country goes through its ups and downs. Right now it's just dipping lower than normal.

[jwirr]

42. Our demise is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We did not have to go down.

[ixion]

15. our government has screwed us all royally

really -- realistically -- there is no way we'll ever be able to pay it all back.

Who has an extra half-million laying around?

[Le Taz Hot]

26. How about

Halliburton & the oil companies? Seize their fucking assets. That's OUR money they're stealing. Voila! No more debt!

[Donnachaidh]

46. How about ConAgra and Big Pharma

let's make it a big three seizure.

ALL of them have been working against the American consumer. Just as guilty as Exxon and Halliburton.

[emald]

51. Thats the way!! Immediately remove personhood from corps,

if it doesn't breath it doesn't get person status. simple really. and then we remove the ill gotten gains from the larders of the corps, take back what was stolen. And stolen is not the wrong word. Oil costs no more to get out of the ground than last year, so why the price increase? We are being economically raped and it's about time to do something about it. But how.

[jwirr]

44. A whole bunch of corp exec. that we could name.

[loudsue]

17. How do you like this part of the article:

"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."

And THAT, my friends, is EXACTLY what the repervliCONS have in mind.

...and the rich get richer.

:kick::kick::kick:

[ixion]

18. hmmmm... if it is a program, then why am I forced to pay into it?

:shrug: :grr:

[CRH]

65. Yep, the funds are diverted to sustain deficit spending for the war machine, ...

rather than investing the surplus of our payroll taxes to fund the future. Following years of deficit spending digging a properly deep grave, and after the benefits are cut to below subsistence, declare the system flawed; then declare all hope of salvage is in privatization and forced private individual funded pension investment accounts on Wall Street. Food for future raiders, with no oversight in sight.

A person on minimum wages should be able to provide for their own future, given the means of privatized institutional accounts, much in the same way since deregulation, your bank appreciates and rewards your savings accounts with interest income, while inflation and dollar devaluation eats many times as much equity.

[Kokonoe]

19. I dunno,

"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." If we just get rid of that pesky heath care and pensions, we would all be millionaires. sarcasm.

[sellitman]

20. Vote Republican..

Get a tax break!!!!!!!


:sarcasm:

[SpiralHawk]

21. Thanks a pantload, you republicon screwups

republicons spend, spend, spend like drunken sailors to enrich their fatcat cronies, and
cannot balance the budget.

Tell me again how republicons are "conservatives." Bwaaa ha ha ha ha. Just more republicon BS propaganda.

Throw the corrupt republicon cronies out...

[jwirr]

45. The difference between their spending and the spending on

social programs is that we have nothing to show for it when they are through: Iraq, Katrina, Homeland Security, etc. When a government spends on programs that stimulate economy as FDR did then there are things to show in the end: REA, Social Security, etc.

[CrispyQ]

58. And roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, parks, safe food & water. . .

You stated it perfectly: "The difference between their spending and the spending on social programs is that we have nothing to show for it when they are through."

I am going to use that in the future. B-)

[jwirr]

63. That idea came from a class discussion at the University of Iowa

about military spending during the Vietnam War. When you make a tank it is good for only one thing - it sets there waiting for a war you do not want. When you educate a child it has an endless potential.

[whistle]

24. By the same accounting rules, how much are taxpayers in debt for the Iraq/Afghanistan War

...the military contracts and all Pentagon spending planned for the next 50 years? This article is total foolishness!

[madrchsod]

25. more right wing libertarian bullshit to scare the masses

i can`t believe anyone would think this is a valid premise

[Roland99]

27. What about the massive on-the-books debt do you find fraudulent?

Perhaps a little dose of reality:

Almost Unnoticed, Bipartisan Budget Anxiety
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701238_pf.html

Fiscal Wake-Up Tour
http://www.concordcoalition.org/events/fiscal-wake-up/

[Lasher]

49. From your WaPo article:

The congressional staffers, accustomed to sitting on opposite sides of the room in such events, seemed flummoxed by yesterday's unusual session in the Rayburn House Office Building. One questioner suggested Republicans are to blame for multiple tax cuts; another implied the problem is a Democratic appetite for spending. The bipartisan panel would not be goaded. "I'm willing to talk about taxes if you're willing to talk about entitlements," Butler offered.

The Democratic appetite for spending is a myth. Republicans are fiscal liberals who spend more than do Democrats.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20059-2005Apr1.html

Butler is interested in talking about cuts to New Deal social programs only. In this he represents a consistent Heritage Foundation strategy.

How about we talk about taxes and spending? We're spending almost as much on our military as the entire rest of the world combined. I don't think we should ignore that while we gut our social programs.

[CRH]

68. perhaps a little dose of reality, ...

government figures indicate 49% of every tax dollar is spent within the defense industry and intelligence, the later is an unintended oxymoron.

The cost of global economic and military hegemony, is unsustainable, else the society must be drained of all other communal affluence.

[Roland99]

72. Yes, yes, defense spending is 59% of our Discretionary budget .. BUT ..

That PALES in comparison to the huge Medicare and Social Security obligations facing the gov't.

[radicalcapitalist]

28. And the politician smiles, for he knows the people are fooled.

[lonestarnot]

29. Before or after the last spending bill?

[enough already]

30. If we don't raise taxes soon, we're totally screwed

Screw the rich, it's time for them to pay up.

[originalpckelly]

37. 100% taxation could not pay for this, it's more than the GDP of America for many years.

[many a good man]

31. Is that more or less than a brazillion?

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.


I agree that controlling health care costs is the most urgent issue facing our country. The rest can controlled by taking back from the top 5% everything the Republicans have stolen for them in the past 25 years and by cutting back the enormous military expenditures.

[The Backlash Cometh]

32. They did it. They raided the lockbox, didn't they?

[originalpckelly]

39. I believe they rolled over it with an XM2001 Crusader.

You'll get that by reading this (if you don't already):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM2001_Crusader

[BlueEyedSon]

33. They came to raid the US Treasury, and they did it!

[Doctor_J]

34. Smirk is waiting for his dad's pals to bail him out like they've done

every time he's created a disaster the last 40 years. Don't think it's going to happen this time.

[BlueJac]

36. Perfect.....

This is how it is supposed to work in Bush World.

[bamacrat]

40. Holy Shit.

I dont know what else to say, Im only 23 so I have no hope of social security or... holy shit.
:mad: :puke: :smoke: :wtf: :scared:

[nolabels]

43. How many is a trillion?

$57,000,000,000,000,000 dollars divided between three hundred million people would indicate an amount due for payment of $196,666.67 per capita.

[CatholicEdHead]

50. I have $200K right now in my pocket to pay my share of it

:sarcasm:

[bemildred]

47. A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money ... nt

[Sadie5]

52. Don't believe anything Chocola spews

He speaks from the side of his mouth. He would like you to believe that he has suddenly developed a human side but he used these same tricks to get elected before. there is no doubt that this article is right on the money, but after he gets reelected it will be a different story(repig all the way). Chocola comes from a rich Northern Indiana family and could care less for the underling. He is busom buddies with Bush and Lugar.

[bemildred]

53. I don't believe anything that comes from any Republicon, and most Democrats.

But I do believe we have a shitload of debt these days.

[CRH]

69. Ah bemildred, you Dirksened me with nostalgic republican humor, ...

one of the last republicans to sometimes make sense. Then it was runaway spending during a Democratic administration, funding another mis adventure in American history.

edit spelling

[bemildred]

73. It would be fun to have Everett around now ...

How soon we forget these guys when they are gone, eh?
:hi:

[Norquist Nemesis]

54. "Modern accounting" blah blah blah (Like Enron?)

Frankly, his reporting of "promises" as a future expense seems off. Is he suggesting that each time a baby is born that his/her Social Security "promise" be charged? :shrug: And, typically, his only solution is SCARE THE PUBLIC!!! instead of offering some real solutions for reform (e.g. either removing the cap and/or means testing for SS).

BTW, where were the Cons when people were losing their pensions promised by corporations raiding the funds?... They vacillated between silence and blaming the Unions.

[bemildred]

55. Goodness, we might have to take money from rich people to pay all this off ... nt

[npincus]

56. The Catastrophic President.

[Massachusetts]

59. Communal Living for Baby boomer's will make a return big time.

Not only a return, BUT a necessity.

[IWantAChange]

64. Is a social revolution in the distance?

Should the economy go into a serious tailspin (incredible debt/shrinking corporate profits/negative savings rate for over 2 years/etc), unemployment increase dramatically (you don't seriously believe the #'s released by the gov't do you???), foreclosure rates rise because of the relaxed lending rules to 'expand' home ownership to those less qualified ( a foregone conclusion), and millions of people lose their homes and face bankruptcy (oops, didn't the GOP just make it harder on the individual to declare bankruptcy???) while the 'uber-class' continue to expand their fortunes the possibility of serious social unrest doesn't seem impossible.

[Catchawave]

67. And raising taxes is a no-no ?

I know the Dems get clobbered for suggesting that, but maybe cutting taxes during Bush's War wasn't the best idea either :shrug:

[lefador]

71. The old adagio goes something like this:

You may fight a war, have a strong economy, or lower taxes. You can only chose two.


However Bush the fucknut wanted all three: He wanted to be a war president, he did not have a strong economy entering the war, but that didn't stop him from lowering taxes. If this was truly the "war to save our civilization" everyone should be pitching in, from the middle and lower classes providing the cannon fodder and workforce, to the elites paying for the war effort.

It is always the fat cats who wear suspenders that tell other people to tighten their belts.

In any case, this is a debt based economy. I.e. banks and financiers use debt to generate their money based on IOUs, so as far as they are concerned the more debt the better. It is all funny money, anyways...

[Martin Eden]

70. We are witnessing STARVE THE BEAST in action

Grover Norquist's vision for defunding federal social porograms and regulatory agencies is based on depriving the federal government of funds -- in other words, create budget deficits and federal debt so humongous that eventually there will apparently be no choice but to de-fund the parts of the government the hard right hates.

As long as their rich constituents get tax breaks and offshore havens for their wealth, the Rethuglicans are happy to drive the federal government into bankruptcy.

[Purveyor]

75. Rules 'Hiding' Trillions In Debt; Liability $516,348 per U.S. household

Source: 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.



Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070529/1a_lede29.art.htm

[babylonsister]

76. Rec'd. Cafferty was talking about this today; this admin is most

certainly bankrupting our country and then trying to hide that fact.

[MichiganVote]

77. We are going to pay dearly for our choices in this country.

[Double T]

78. Future generations? I'd say the current generations are completely screwed.........

thanks to the irresponsible representation and legislation by our elected leaders.

[lonestarnot]

79. Damn, how did I know this?

[napi21]

80. This Admin, is definately hiding a lot, but the idea of applying

corporate accounting rules to the Gov't is deceptive too!

I have no idea what assumptions they made when they did this comparrison, but let's think about this for a bit.

Social Security, which is of course what was being referenced in the "even if the payment will be made later" statement, requires that you make a HUGH # of assumptions. Yes you can use averages to estimate length of life, but sooo many things can alter the outcome of your estimates! Just in the last 5 years, 3,000+ YOUNG people died in the Trade Towers, I don't think we even KNOW how many died in NOLA , MS, etc. storms. The 3,500 soldiers have quite an efffect as well! None of those people will ever collect their retirement! There's soo much that is unforseen, IMO, it's imposssible to make any valid assumptions at all! What about Medicare? The same problems apply with applying assumptions of expenses there!

Corporations don't have those kind of problems. Yes, they will have SOME unforseen expenses, but few if any will materially affect the bottom line. They KNOW how many employees they have, and what they've promised them in retirement benefits...if anything at all, so few if any assumptions must be made.

I know it probably sounds like a lot of babbeling, but this really was a very misleading comparrison!

[madrchsod]

81. another attack by the far right republicans on social security

what`s worse than that is people actually believe this garbage.

[mopinko]

83. this shit again? really.

a statistical zombie, popping up every few years. they use different accounting rules because- it's different.

[Robson]

89. The use same accounting rules as Enron

It's called keeping debt obligations off the balance sheet. The government should treat government finances as every familiy treats theirs. No hidden liabilities and spend only what is earned.

[papau]

85. USATODAY reports the Bush con job as if it was a real analysis

USATODAY reports the Bush "entitlement" liability number over next 75 years as if its real

Under one of the 3 Soc Sec scenarios (a conservative set of assumptions but not as conservative as the other 2 scenarios) the fund never needs a change from today's rules.

If there is never a deficit causing the SS Trust Fund to go to zero over the next 100 years, and there can be no "liability" for a Social Security program that is projected over the next 75 years to never drain the Trust fund. And that is the case in the 3rd projection - which over the years has been the one we achieve each year - because it uses assumptions that are only a little conservative relative to what we achieve each year on average.

Yet USATODAY http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news//1a_lede29.art.htm reports these unreal numbers like they are real or mean something other than we are getting another Bush con job. Of these numbers are calculated correctly by the actuaries - I'm an actuary and I've checked them. But what you get out of a projection and its present value of future liabilities is based on the assumptions you use. And the administration tells the actuaries what they want to see and fixes the level of conservatism to get that result.

It is not a case of "Rules 'hiding' trillions in debt" - rather it is a case of the new rules producing nonsense numbers that do not mean anything. Heck, increase the discount rate by 1% and that "Social Security liability" all goes away with both the very conservative projection and with the very, very conservative projection.

Again - we have a problem with health care that requires single payer or at least no pre-existing condition can affect anything rules.

But there is no problem with Social Security.

A tax cut for the poor by reducing the payroll tax from 12.4% to 10.4% while getting the same money sent to the trust fund by eliminating the wage cap - that is what we should do and that is what I am waiting for some Democrat to say.

This is a way to take our eye of the constant half-trillion real increases each year in the National Debt - the budget deficit crap is a con and the deficit is not decreasing - just check the only true report on the deficit - the increase in the National Debt. And that real 0.5 trillion deficit each year has zero in it coming from the Social Security System.

[Robson]

82. Thank God Bush and others know how to fix this.

Bush and the minimalist taxpaying business sector have a plan to fix all this. Legalize 20 million illegal immigrants and unskilled workers from Mexico and elsewhere, and their 80 million relatives. Add them immediately to the US social security and Medicare rolls, force a reduction in wages of all Americans, and the end result will be a bail out for the USA.

LOL.....believe that if you believe Greek mythology

[DemGa]

84. And the chimp says "Democrats will raise your taxes"

when the chimp added 3 trillion to the National debt. It would be funny if they were not destroying this country.

[Rydz777]

86. The Democratic President who takes office in January 2009 will

have a mountain of problems left behind by Bush. I can't imagine how they can all be solved, but I hope (probably vainly) that the Iraq war will not be one of them. If the Democratic Congress, using the power of the purse, would bring this disastrous war to an end, it would be the very best thing they could do to give the next Democratic President a chance to get off to a good start.

[gatorboy]

88. Which was the point in hiding this.

Blame it on the next guy.

He was true to his word though. "Treat government like a business." Anyone remember how good a business man Bush was?:scared:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

87. Did they mention interest on the debt?

$190,000,000,000.00+ so far this year.

Banks could fund an Iraq every year and have profits left over.

:shrug:


$300B+ a year in interest and not much of a peep. Ask for a hunny billion for a war and "Who Let The Dogs Out?!"





:shrug:

[slipslidingaway]

90. Social Security Income, Outgo, and Assets

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/assets.html

[Fringe3000]

91. Our Motto

You know, if the peace sign was the symbol of the 60's, the smiley face the symbol of the 70's...

Then the symbol of today is:



Welcome to the 'screw you'.

[KatyaR]

92. Obviously the "MBA Administration" missed that day of accounting class.

:sarcasm:

I'm surprised it's only $1.3 trillion--I sure it's much, much more if you take into considering how screwed we will be for GENERATIONS to come.

Talk about leaving a legacy . . . .