Does $65.5 trillion terrify anyone yet?

[red states rule]

Yet the Dems still believe that our government is too small, and not enough taxpayer money is being spent


Federal obligations exceed world GDP
Does $65.5 trillion terrify anyone yet?

Posted: February 13, 2009
11:35 pm Eastern


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


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.

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

[DannyR]

Shame it finally took a democratic president before Republicans again became aware of how spending is bad.

I'm guessing two more years of uncontrolled spending will be the price we pay for the years of Republican neglect, then hopefully congress can change hands and we'll have a repeat of 1994's budget conscious congressional freshmen.

[red states rule]

Shame it finally took a democratic president before Republicans again became aware of how spending is bad.

I'm guessing two more years of uncontrolled spending will be the price we pay for the years of Republican neglect, then hopefully congress can change hands and we'll have a repeat of 1994's budget conscious congressional freshmen.

Is that why Dems are close to doubling the national debt in such a short period on time?

[red states rule]

<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dp8ZmQMCtqA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dp8ZmQMCtqA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

[DannyR]

Is that why Dems are close to doubling the national debt in such a short peirod on time?Eh? I don't see how that is even close to being true. Got figures to back that up?

[red states rule]

Eh? I don't see how that is even close to being true. Got figures to back that up?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=21311

[DannyR]

Yeah, as I thought. You are confusing future commitments with actual spending.

If you do that, then the current national debt is, as you stated around 65.5 trillion bucks. Dems aren't anywhere close to doubling that, and actual immediate spending isn't anywhere close to doubling the current 11 trillion we actually owe now.

[red states rule]

Yeah, as I thought. You are confusing future commitments with actual spending.

If you do that, then the current national debt is, as you stated around 65.5 trillion bucks. Dems aren't anywhere close to doubling that.

Oh, so do not count what is owed? Now that is a interesting way of doing business

Yet libs ranted over the spending of the Republican Congress - now they are setting a new mark in deficit spending

What the hell, they will not be alive when the bill comes due

[DannyR]

Oh, so do not count what is owed? Now that is a interesting way of doing businesswow, you just had a major logic lapse. Reread what I just wrote again. You are comparing numbers two ways and I corrected you.

You compare a number including what is owed on one side, but ignoring what is owed on the other. Sorry, can't have it both ways.

[red states rule]

The article is comparing future obligations with the current world GDP. Since Dems are charging their pork bills to the credit card, they are increasing those numbers

[The ClayTaurus]

Oh, so do not count what is owed? Now that is a interesting way of doing business

Yet libs ranted over the spending of the Republican Congress - now they are setting a new mark in deficit spending

What the hell, they will not be alive when the bill comes dueAnd you're now ranting over this administration's spending after your party's president set new spending marks over the past 8 years.

How black IS that kettle?

[gabosaurus]

Add how much the Iraq war has cost Americans. Then talk to us about terrifying numbers.

[Yurt]

Add how much the Iraq war has cost Americans. Then talk to us about terrifying numbers.

less than obama's first bailout/spending bill

and far less than the numbers indicated in this thread

[bullypulpit]

Yet the Dems still believe that our government is too small, and not enough taxpayer money is being spent


Federal obligations exceed world GDP
Does $65.5 trillion terrify anyone yet?

Posted: February 13, 2009
11:35 pm Eastern


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


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.

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

Wait...wait...wait...Not THE Jerome Corsi? The same Jerome Corsi who, with a straight face, said hat Hillary Clinton is a lesbian, that John Kerry is both a Jew and a Communist, and that Muslims actually worship Satan? The very same Jerome Corsi who accused George W. Bush of harboring a secret plan to merge Mexico with the USA?

...Giggle...Snicker...choke...snicker...BWAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHA! ...Gasp...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ...tears rolling down face...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, THAT Jerome Corsi. God Red, you are pathetic.

[The ClayTaurus]

less than obama's first bailout/spending bill

and far less than the numbers indicated in this threadHow much, then?

[Yurt]

How much, then?

well...the war in iraq is approx 600 billion, that is less than 65 trillion mentioned in this thread...and nearly 300 billion less than obama's first bailout...next one up is over a trillion, with some saying obama wants total close to 3 trillion.

[bullypulpit]

See post <a href=http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=349873&postcount=14>#14</a>.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Gasp...Snicker...giggle...er...hem.

Bed time. Gotta take care of sick folks tomorrow.

[actsnoblemartin]

Add how much the Iraq war has cost Americans. Then talk to us about terrifying numbers.

google how much we spend on medicare, medicaid and social security (now thats scary)

its actually 2-1 vs iraq spending

[glockmail]

Wait...wait...wait...Not THE Jerome Corsi? The same Jerome Corsi who, with a straight face, said hat Hillary Clinton is a lesbian, that John Kerry is both a Jew and a Communist, and that Muslims actually worship Satan? The very same Jerome Corsi who accused George W. Bush of harboring a secret plan to merge Mexico with the USA?

...Giggle...Snicker...choke...snicker...BWAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHA! ...Gasp...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ...tears rolling down face...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, THAT Jerome Corsi. God Red, you are pathetic.
If you can't dispute the argument, attack the messenger.

[DannyR]

How much, then?Budget authority of the Iraq war is currently 635 billion dollars.

Before the war, Laurence Lindsay estimated the ultimate cost between 100-200 billion. This so shocked the Bushies that he was fired and "better" estimates of 50-60 billion came out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19cost.html

"We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." – Wolfowitz, March 28, 2003. :laugh2:


Since so many people in this thread like using "future" costs as well, then we're actually talking about 4 trillion.

[bullypulpit]

If you can't dispute the argument, attack the messenger.

Jerome Corsi doesn't argue...He just makes shit up and publishes it as fact. Kinda like FOX News, just smaller.

[red states rule]

Jerome Corsi doesn't argue...He just makes shit up and publishes it as fact. Kinda like FOX News, just smaller.

and when libs like you can;t counter facts - you attack

The numbers are correct. Mr Corsi is not the first to talk about SS - it has been discussed for years

When Pres Bush tried to reform SS in 2004 - Dems and RINOS balked. Much like they did when he tried to reform Fannie and Freddie


snip

Social Security Time Bomb, and the Candidates Aren't Talking
by Michael D. Tanner


Michael Tanner, director of the Project on Social Security Choice at the Cato Institute, is the editor of the book, "Social Security and Its Discontents" (Cato Institute, 2004), released this week.

Added to cato.org on April 29, 2004

This article appeared on cato.org on April 29, 2004.


The figure most cited in the media is the "present value" of Social Security's unfounded liabilities, $3.7 trillion, which represents the amount needed to cover shortfalls after the Trust Fund is exhausted in 2042. An additional $1.5 trillion would be needed to redeem the bonds in the trust fund, for a total unfounded liability of $5.2 trillion, on a present value basis. Present value calculations are an important number for economists and actuaries-they show the amount the government would have to set aside today (assuming it earned standard interest rates) to pay all promised benefits in the future. But, of course, the government cannot set aside $5.2 trillion today. That would be nearly half of our Gross Domestic Product.

Therefore, a better measure of Social Security's financial crisis is its actual cash deficit: the total amount that its expenditures will exceed its revenue from 2018 on. Measured in constant 2004 dollars, that shortfall is an astounding $26 trillion-$26,000,000,000,000.00.

To put this in context, in 2018, the first year that Social Security will run a cash deficit, that shortfall will be approximately $16 billion, or roughly the equivalent of the current budgets for Head Start and the WIC nutritional program. In another two years, Social Security's shortfalls will nearly exceed those two programs, plus the Departments of Education, Commerce, Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency. By 2030 or so, you can throw in the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans Affairs. And the biggest deficits would be still to come.

Or, if you would rather look at it in terms of taxes, in the first year after Social Security starts running a deficit, the government must acquire revenues equivalent to nearly $200 per worker. By 2042, the additional tax burden increases to almost $2,000 per worker, and by 2078 it reaches a crushing $4,200 per worker (in constant dollars). And it continues to rise thereafter. Functionally, that would translate into either a huge increase in the payroll tax, from the current 12.4 percent to as much as 18.9 percent by 2078, or an equivalent increase in income or other taxes.

And all of this doesn't even begin to consider Social Security's other problems: a poor and declining rate-of-return for younger workers; issues of fairness for minorities and working women; the impact on wealth creation; and the lack of legal ownership and control over one's benefits.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2633

[glockmail]

Jerome Corsi doesn't argue...He just makes shit up and publishes it as fact. Kinda like FOX News, just smaller. More of the same baseless attacks from you. Why not stick to the issues? Oh yeah, that would prove you wrong.

[5stringJeff]

It amazes me that US Treasury bonds are still AAA-rated.

[glockmail]

It amazes me that US Treasury bonds are still AAA-rated.
For now. http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5758:bailout-threatens-us-triple-a-credit-rating&catid=51:world&Itemid=67