Reply With Quote
USA has an intentional, UCA/VRWC-policy-driven, starve-the-beast REVENUE problem, not a deficit problem.
The government is exactly what the corps and capitalists want it to be, their private ATM financed by taxpayers.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ters ialskip
The federal government's financial condition deteriorated rapidly last year, far beyond the $1.5 trillion in new debt taken on to finance the budget deficit, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.
This gap between spending commitments and revenue last year equals more than one-third of the nation's gross domestic product.
Medicare alone took on $1.8 trillion in new liabilities, more than the record deficit prompting heated debate between Congress and the White House over lifting the debt ceiling.
STORY: Government's mountain of debt
Social Security added $1.4 trillion in obligations, partly reflecting longer life expectancies. Federal and military retirement programs added more to the financial hole, too.
Corporations would be required to count these new liabilities when they are taken on — and report a big loss to shareholders. Unlike businesses, however, Congress postpones recording spending commitments until it writes a check.
The $61.6 trillion in unfunded obligations amounts to $534,000 per household. That's more than five times what Americans have borrowed for everything else — mortgages, car loans and other debt. It reflects the challenge as the number of retirees soars over the next 20 years and seniors try to collect on those spending promises.
"The (federal) debt only tells us what the government owes to the public. It doesn't take into account what's owed to seniors, veterans and retired employees," says accountant Sheila Weinberg, founder of the Ins ute for Truth in Accounting, a Chicago-based group that advocates better financial reporting. "Without accurate accounting, we can't make good decisions."
Michael Lind, policy director at the liberal New America Foundation's economic growth program, says there is no near-term crisis for federal retirement programs and that economic growth will make these programs more affordable.
"The false claim that Social Security and Medicare are about to bankrupt the United States has been repeated for decades by conservatives and libertarians who pretend that their ideological opposition to these successful and cost-effective programs is based on worries about the deficit," he says.
USA TODAY has calculated federal finances based on standard accounting rules since 2004 using data from the Medicare and Social Security annual reports and the little-known audited financial report of the federal government.
The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs.
USA has an intentional, UCA/VRWC-policy-driven, starve-the-beast REVENUE problem, not a deficit problem.
The government is exactly what the corps and capitalists want it to be, their private ATM financed by taxpayers.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-07-2011 at 09:24 AM.
The $2.5 Trillion Tragedy: What America Has Given Up For 10 Years Of Bush Tax Cuts
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...-bush-tax-cuts
OK, if it's just a revenue problem then just write your $534,000 check, ...
We're way past the point of no return, so the question is, does it matter if it's $534,000 or $200,000 or $2,000,000?
Basically, we're all going to feel the pinch wether you cut all spending or the economy boils over.
It's a real shame we couldn't build on having a balanced budget 10 or so years ago...
True, but the "balanced budget" ten years ago didn't include all the unfunded liabilities either...so it really wasn't balanced at all...just relatively better than it is now.
Well, that's why I said 'build on'. Cuts had to be made to get there, and it's really an obvious and necessary step: making sure you don't spend more than what you collect. It's a lot easier to fund obligations once you have a surplus.
I thought there was momentum then to move forward with deeper changes.
If only it was a real surplus. The surplus was "borrow from Peter to pay Paul" magic accounting. They paid the general debt while increasing debt (and other obligations exceeding the reported surplus amount) in other areas.
But at least it was closer to breaking even overall than this crap we got now. That's what happens when Democrats give in on tax breaks followed by Republicans giving in on increased spending. Total jack ude.
Reagan Tax Reform Act of 2011
The problem has become so great that many giant American corporations have become so adept at exploiting loopholes in the tax code that they paid no federal income taxes at all last year -- if Republicans in Congress follow their pledge to Norquist, they won't be able to close a single one of the loopholes that are allowing corporations to avoid paying their fair share.
Even Reagan recognized the difference between just plain raising taxes and simplifying the tax code to cut out loopholes that subsidize corporations. In 1984, he arranged to bring in $50 billion over three years, mainly by closing these loopholes. His 1986 reform act not only included $120 billion in tax hikes for corporations over five years, it also closed $300 billion worth of corporate loopholes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae...tml?view=print
=========
St Ronnie would be considered, along with Eisenhower, as a flaming red socialist by today's Repug anarchists.
Exactly. At least back then you could argue they were trying. Nowadays both parties seemingly are all just talk. When the vote came around to extend the tax breaks, they all jumped into it.
No worries. These unfunded obligations will magically take care of themselves when people just stop getting social security checks and doctors stop treating medicare patients.
Which is why W wanted to simplify the tax code and take out just about every loophole and deduction. Too bad that was a non-starter. And it wasn't high enough on his priorities list to actually push, preferring to spend his time trying to fix SS.
No kidding. That top level tax break should have been allowed to expire back in 2003 or 2004. We'd be in MUCH better shape if they had done that back then.
Sooooooo.... um,
Am I going to be able to retire in about 7 years? Or has the already hit the fan? Perhaps a Swiss account/portfolio is in order?
I'd expect benefit decreases across the board (harsher decreases the further into the future) within the next couple years, coupled with an increase in payroll taxes.Sooooooo.... um,
Am I going to be able to retire in about 7 years? Or has the already hit the fan? Perhaps a Swiss account/portfolio is in order?
That's about all they ever do to it.
7 years away, you're probably safe.Sooooooo.... um,
Am I going to be able to retire in about 7 years? Or has the already hit the fan? Perhaps a Swiss account/portfolio is in order?
The younger you are, the more ed you are.
I am not an accountant but if I read that right aren't a bunch of those "unfunded liabilities" projected income? The number includes Social Security (income after retirement) and Medicare (income in the currency of medical care). So if it is money we owe ourselves is it that bad? On the other hand, unfunded and unneeded wars have definitely impacted our debt. Are we supposed to say "yes" to more Republican military adventures? With what they blew on Iraq and the unregulated pigs on Wall St. almost driving into the ditch why would we ever want to elect Republicans? They tank the economy and drive up the debt ever time they get a shot at it.
Tactically devastating. Preside over and encourage an unsustainably bid up credit/securities bubble, blame the results on your crappy Democratic successors.
Works every time.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
