Federal Obligations Exceed World GDP

[AU_domer]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88851

As the Obama administration pushes through Congress its $800 billion deficit-spending economic stimulus plan, the American public is largely unaware that the true deficit of the federal government already is measured in trillions of dollars, and in fact its $65.5 trillion in total obligations exceeds the gross domestic product of the world.

The total U.S. obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits to be paid in the future, effectively have placed the U.S. government in bankruptcy, even before new continuing social welfare obligation embedded in the massive spending plan are taken into account.

The real 2008 federal budget deficit was $5.1 trillion, not the $455 billion previously reported by the Congressional Budget Office, according to the "2008 Financial Report of the United States Government" as released by the U.S. Department of Treasury.

The difference between the $455 billion "official" budget deficit numbers and the $5.1 trillion budget deficit cited by "2008 Financial Report of the United States Government" is that the official budget deficit is calculated on a cash basis, where all tax receipts, including Social Security tax receipts, are used to pay government liabilities as they occur.

But the numbers in the 2008 report are calculated on a GAAP basis ("Generally Accepted Accounting Practices") that include year-for-year changes in the net present value of unfunded liabilities in social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

Under cash accounting, the government makes no provision for future Social Security and Medicare benefits in the year in which those benefits accrue.

"As bad as 2008 was, the $455 billion budget deficit on a cash basis and the $5.1 trillion federal budget deficit on a GAAP accounting basis does not reflect any significant money [from] the financial bailout or Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, which was approved after the close of the fiscal year," economist John Williams, who publishes the Internet website Shadow Government Statistics, told WND.

....

(continued at the link)

[Shimmy]

Don't worry.  The socialist party will fix it.

[Just Win]

the barry/ democrat house and democrat senate stimulus bill will fix it all, just ask bill maher, david letterman, and john "libowitz" steaart. the big problem is how we are going to blame this barry/ democrat house and democrat senate debt orgy on conservatives, hannity, bortz, limbaugh, sarah palin, bobby jinkdal,  and fox news. i am certain david axelrod and james carvelle are dilligently working to figure out how to set the blame and make it stick.


Democrat Party House financial wizard, Rep.
Barney Frank


Democrat Party Senate financial wizard,
 Senator Chris Dodd

[AU_domer]

JustWin,

I was a Republican my entire life because I believe in small government, personal responsibility and liberty.

The Republican party has been straying from those principles for at least the last 15 years.  The Republican party and the Bush's in particular have no sense of fiscal responsibility. The prescription drug bill signed in to law by Bush II was the most irresponsible piece of legislation enacted by our government since the 60's.  At least until last week.

The Republican party is far from blameless in this situation.  You are acting like a partisan hack.  There is hardly any difference between the R's and D's these days, besides the abortion issue. 

I don't know how you can hold the value system of the former Republican party and continue to pull that lever in their favor on election day.  I haven't voted for a Repulican in over 10 years.  I have never voted for a Democrat in my life. 

the barry/ democrat house and democrat senate stimulus bill will fix it all, just ask bill maher, david letterman, and john "libowitz" steaart. the big problem is how we are going to blame this barry/ democrat house and democrat senate debt orgy on conservatives, hannity, bortz, limbaugh, sarah palin, bobby jinkdal,  and fox news. i am certain david axelrod and james carvelle are dilligently working to figure out how to set the blame and make it stick.


Democrat Party House financial wizard, Rep.
Barney Frank


Democrat Party Senate financial wizard,
 Senator Chris Dodd

[Just Win]

JustWin,

I was a Republican my entire life because I believe in small government, personal responsibility and liberty.

The Republican party has been straying from those principles for at least the last 15 years.  The Republican party and the Bush's in particular have no sense of fiscal responsibility. The prescription drug bill signed in to law by Bush II was the most irresponsible piece of legislation enacted by our government since the 60's.  At least until last week.

The Republican party is far from blameless in this situation.  You are acting like a partisan hack.  There is hardly any difference between the R's and D's these days, besides the abortion issue. 

I don't know how you can hold the value system of the former Republican party and continue to pull that lever in their favor on election day.  I haven't voted for a Repulican in over 10 years.  I have never voted for a Democrat in my life. 

well i am not a goper like you. i do not put my faith in political parties. i am an American and a conservative. now that we know what uniforms we are wearing, let's get down to the nub of discussion.

 this current debt orgy is owned and operated by barry and the democrat congress plus susan collins, arlene spector, and olympia snowe. if you are as smart as you purport to be, you know the root cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related

[TheAngryVoice]

Domer, dont expect these bed wetting liberals to give a rats azz.....long as dey gitsa check dey dont be carin.

[NCVol]

When did you start giving a rat's azz?  Was it back in November when Obama won the elections, when the GOP lost Congress in 2006, or did the lights finally turn on in January 2009 when Bush was finally ushered out of the WH and returned to Texas?

Because that debt number was about 25 Trillion in 2000, and has gone up by trillions every year since.  It's just odd that now that it's reached what it has and republicans are irrelevant in D.C. that fiscally responsible conservatives have noticed.  It's like a fat man finally realizing he's got a weight problem when the scale tips over 400 pounds. 

[Sasquatch]

My response has always been that Bush was a fiscal liberal. However, I think we need to come up with a new term to describe the Obama administration. "Liberal" is a much too conservative term to use.

NCVOl, when will you come out and blast Obama and the dems for their spending which is coupled with more (albeit small) tax cuts?

[Just Win]

My response has always been that Bush was a fiscal liberal. However, I think we need to come up with a new term to describe the Obama administration. "Liberal" is a much too conservative term to use.

NCVOl, when will you come out and blast Obama and the dems for their spending which is coupled with more (albeit small) tax cuts?

sas,

 i think w was similar to nixon in that he had a superior grasp of foreign affairs yet allowed domestic policy to drift to the left of center. the forces of historical events (9/11) forced w to change the focus of his presidency. having individuals such as paulson and denny hastert tarnished his legacy. please do not construe from my comments that w was as intelligent as nixon. w is a very intelligent man. however, few have held the presidency that were the intellectual equivalent of richard nixon. even jfk recognized the brilliance of rmn in foreign affairs. too bad those ballot boxes in chicago and south texas were rigged in '60. we might have avoided mcnamara, lbj, and the entire southeast asia thing.

[TheAngryVoice]

When did you start giving a rat's azz?  Was it back in November when Obama won the elections, when the GOP lost Congress in 2006, or did the lights finally turn on in January 2009 when Bush was finally ushered out of the WH and returned to Texas?

Because that debt number was about 25 Trillion in 2000, and has gone up by trillions every year since.  It's just odd that now that it's reached what it has and republicans are irrelevant in D.C. that fiscally responsible conservatives have noticed.  It's like a fat man finally realizing he's got a weight problem when the scale tips over 400 pounds. 

Ever notice how easy it is to cue up a bed wetter here?

[NCVol]

Ever notice how easy it is to cue up a bed wetter here?

Not quite as easy as getting republicans marching in lockstep to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. 

I was just half joking. Deficits didn't matter to republican voters until some time after the GOP became irrelevant.  Whether that was when McCain got beat, the democrats gained 7 senate seats or 22 House seats in 2008, or at inauguration isn't clear, but what is clear is all the talk of deficits DISAPPEARED while Bush was in charge, and it was replaced by "low taxes" with no regard for deficits or debt.  We've been running up multi-Trillion deficits every year for eight years.  Did republicans care?   

Now that republicans can oppose big spending without taking ANY responsibility for the fallout - Tennessee, for example, WILL get a few billion out of this plan  - it's OK to be a fiscal conservative again because it doesn't take any guts or political courage, just the irrelevant minority marching in lockstep with Rush and Sean knowing all the while that the money will get appropriated.  It's a perfect role for republicans - not taking responsibility for anything.... 

BTW, Sasquatch, I don't feel the same offense at the stimulus package as I did the republican spending spree for the simple reason that now IS the time to run up large deficits.  I know some of you don't believe it, but, IMO, we really ARE at just the beginning of an long economic recession/depression. The smart people are talking about an L shaped recovery - not a V or a U, but a much deeper decline from here, and that's happening with each month's job losses worse than the month before, a YEAR into the recession, followed by a LONG period of stagnant economic activity as a result of decades of gorging on debt across all levels of the economy. 

Just reverting back to normal savings levels is a 6- 8% reduction in consumer spending from year ago levels, and 4 or 5 % from HERE, and that level of spending just will not support the economic activity we had in 2006.  I believe, honestly, that to do nothing would be catastrophic, if for no other reason than the financial losses due to housing etc. are estimated at over $2 trillion more from here and if you add consumer defaults because of 5 million more unemployed and the associated business collapses because of the decline in demand, our financial system might literally implode.  It might still. 

Right or wrong, I think we're really in an unbelievably perilous position as an economy, as is the rest of the world.  And so we're in a position where there is no good answer.  The only alternative is to let the economy completely collapse, which might be the right thing, but that is the option I think. 

[Shimmy]

My response has always been that Bush was a fiscal liberal. However, I think we need to come up with a new term to describe the Obama administration. "Liberal" is a much too conservative term to use.

NCVOl, when will you come out and blast Obama and the dems for their spending which is coupled with more (albeit small) tax cuts?

A great term to describe the Obamanation is socialist.  Fix Bush's liberal tendencies with full blown socialism...good idea.