Who are you going to vote for?

[etucker1959]

What's your point? How that moron got re-elected is definitely up for debate. Let's just say honesty in the demorat party has a whole new meaning these days. Dang you must be bored, out of hundreds of other comments, you single mine out? Got some feelings for me eh DS?

DEMORATS really? Aren't you the one who took offense when I called the Tea Party (Tea baggers)? Not to worry that wing of the Republican party is sinking faster then the Titanic.

[seal]

DEMORATS really? Aren't you the one who took offense when I called the Tea Party (Tea baggers)? Not to worry that wing of the Republican party is sinking faster then the Titanic.

Oh Etucker name calling is weak, tea baggers? Come on find a little creativity, don't follow the lemmings over the cliff. The Republican party is not what the Dems. need to worry about, it's us Independents that don't follow the party BS. What will create a Titanic failure is the Dems. getting all puffy about their presidential success and launching themselves off the cliff by trying to placate and cater to their fanatical far left.

[etucker1959]

Oh Etucker name calling is weak, tea baggers? Come on find a little creativity, don't follow the lemmings over the cliff. The Republican party is not what the Dems. need to worry about, it's us Independents that don't follow the party BS. What will create a Titanic failure is the Dems. getting all puffy about their presidential success and launching themselves off the cliff by trying to placate and cater to their fanatical far left.

Worry about Independents care to elaborate on that one. Also it's been my experience that people who claim to be Independents, either don't vote or vote Republican, so what are the Independents going to do that is so earth shattering?

[DEVOREFLYER]

I would not count out the "Tea Party" yet. Pretty amazing stats for a group to start from nothing with no real leader and I predict it will only grow and could well become a viable third party at some time in the future. Only 57% of ALL ELGIBLE VOTERS voted in the 2012 election. The question is who are the 43% that did not vote and more importantly WHY did they not vote. I would guess that a large number did not like either party or candidate.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/tea-pa...by-state-2010/

[DockRat]

Going to have to hit rock bottom before the Bozos wake up.
I still can't believe that Obama isn't making MAJOR Cuts.
Everyday the same, 'We need to tax the wealthy'

EVEN THOUGH the taxes he wants won't fix anything.

Just sit back and watch this Clown bankrupt the USA.

Got some feelings for me eh DS?

[DEVOREFLYER]

DOCKRAT ya nailed it. Read and weep!!!

All the talk about the horror of the fiscal cliff are nothing compared to the fiscal Grand Canyon no one is talking about, much less have any desire to address.

As Washington wrestles with the roughly $600 billion "fiscal cliff" and the 2013 budget, the far greater fiscal challenge of the U.S. government's unfunded pension and health-care liabilities remains offstage. The truly important figures would appear on the federal balance sheet—if the government prepared an accurate one.

But it hasn't. For years, the government has gotten by without having to produce the kind of financial statements that are required of most significant for-profit and nonprofit enterprises. The U.S. Treasury "balance sheet" does list liabilities such as Treasury debt issued to the public, federal employee pensions, and post-retirement health benefits. But it does not include the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Social Security and other outsized and very real obligations.

As a result, fiscal policy discussions generally focus on current-year budget deficits, the accumulated national debt, and the relationships between these two items and gross domestic product. We most often hear about the alarming $15.96 trillion national debt (more than 100% of GDP), and the 2012 budget deficit of $1.1 trillion (6.97% of GDP). As dangerous as those numbers are, they do not begin to tell the story of the federal government's true liabilities.

The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.

Why haven't Americans heard about the titanic $86.8 trillion liability from these programs? One reason: The actual figures do not appear in black and white on any balance sheet. But it is possible to discover them. Included in the annual Medicare Trustees' report are separate actuarial estimates of the unfunded liability for Medicare Part A (the hospital portion), Part B (medical insurance) and Part D (prescription drug coverage).

As of the most recent Trustees' report in April, the net present value of the unfunded liability of Medicare was $42.8 trillion. The comparable balance sheet liability for Social Security is $20.5 trillion.

Were American policy makers to have the benefit of transparent financial statements prepared the way public companies must report their pension liabilities, they would see clearly the magnitude of the future borrowing that these liabilities imply. Borrowing on this scale could eclipse the capacity of global capital markets—and bankrupt not only the programs themselves but the entire federal government.
These real-world impacts will be felt when currently unfunded liabilities need to be paid. In theory, the Medicare and Social Security trust funds have at least some money to pay a portion of the bills that are coming due. In actuality, the cupboard is bare: 100% of the payroll taxes for these programs were spent in the same year they were collected.

In exchange for the payroll taxes that aren't paid out in benefits to current retirees in any given year, the trust funds got nonmarketable Treasury debt. Now, as the baby boomers' promised benefits swamp the payroll-tax collections from today's workers, the government has to swap the trust funds' nonmarketable securities for marketable Treasury debt. The Treasury will then have to sell not only this debt, but far more, in order to pay the benefits as they come due.

When combined with funding the general cash deficits, these multitrillion-dollar Treasury operations will dominate the capital markets in the years ahead, particularly given China's de-emphasis of new investment in U.S. Treasurys in favor of increasing foreign direct investment, and Japan's and Europe's own sovereign-debt challenges.

When the accrued expenses of the government's entitlement programs are counted, it becomes clear that to collect enough tax revenue just to avoid going deeper into debt would require over $8 trillion in tax collections annually. That is the total of the average annual accrued liabilities of just the two largest entitlement programs, plus the annual cash deficit.

Nothing like that $8 trillion amount is available for the IRS to target. According to the most recent tax data, all individuals filing tax returns in America and earning more than $66,193 per year have a total adjusted gross income of $5.1 trillion. In 2006, when corporate taxable income peaked before the recession, all corporations in the U.S. had total income for tax purposes of $1.6 trillion. That comes to $6.7 trillion available to tax from these individuals and corporations under existing tax laws.

In short, if the government confiscated the entire adjusted gross income of these American taxpayers, plus all of the corporate taxable income in the year before the recession, it wouldn't be nearly enough to fund the over $8 trillion per year in the growth of U.S. liabilities. Some public officials and pundits claim we can dig our way out through tax increases on upper-income earners, or even all taxpayers. In reality, that would amount to bailing out the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon. Only by addressing these unsustainable spending commitments can the nation's debt and deficit problems be solved.

Neither the public nor policy makers will be able to fully understand and deal with these issues unless the government publishes financial statements that present the government's largest financial liabilities in accordance with well-established norms in the private sector. When the new Congress convenes in January, making the numbers clear—and establishing policies that finally address them before it is too late—should be a top order of business, but it won't happen.

[seal]

Worry about Independents care to elaborate on that one. Also it's been my experience that people who claim to be Independents, either don't vote or vote Republican, so what are the Independents going to do that is so earth shattering?

What it means is that the hardcore Dems./Liberals will continue to vote the same way, they will self implode, look at California no matter how f'd up this state is they keep electing the same idiots. Independents or borderline Dems. that voted for Obama will not vote for the Democratic party again if they take their "victory" too far left. I am hoping that the "victory" will not enable the radical left of the party (who Obama really is) into thinking they have some kind of referendum to take this country in a direction that will cause greater economic harm.

[etucker1959]

DOCKRAT ya nailed it. Read and weep!!!

All the talk about the horror of the fiscal cliff are nothing compared to the fiscal Grand Canyon no one is talking about, much less have any desire to address.

As Washington wrestles with the roughly $600 billion "fiscal cliff" and the 2013 budget, the far greater fiscal challenge of the U.S. government's unfunded pension and health-care liabilities remains offstage. The truly important figures would appear on the federal balance sheet—if the government prepared an accurate one.

But it hasn't. For years, the government has gotten by without having to produce the kind of financial statements that are required of most significant for-profit and nonprofit enterprises. The U.S. Treasury "balance sheet" does list liabilities such as Treasury debt issued to the public, federal employee pensions, and post-retirement health benefits. But it does not include the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Social Security and other outsized and very real obligations.

As a result, fiscal policy discussions generally focus on current-year budget deficits, the accumulated national debt, and the relationships between these two items and gross domestic product. We most often hear about the alarming $15.96 trillion national debt (more than 100% of GDP), and the 2012 budget deficit of $1.1 trillion (6.97% of GDP). As dangerous as those numbers are, they do not begin to tell the story of the federal government's true liabilities.

The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.

Why haven't Americans heard about the titanic $86.8 trillion liability from these programs? One reason: The actual figures do not appear in black and white on any balance sheet. But it is possible to discover them. Included in the annual Medicare Trustees' report are separate actuarial estimates of the unfunded liability for Medicare Part A (the hospital portion), Part B (medical insurance) and Part D (prescription drug coverage).

As of the most recent Trustees' report in April, the net present value of the unfunded liability of Medicare was $42.8 trillion. The comparable balance sheet liability for Social Security is $20.5 trillion.

Were American policy makers to have the benefit of transparent financial statements prepared the way public companies must report their pension liabilities, they would see clearly the magnitude of the future borrowing that these liabilities imply. Borrowing on this scale could eclipse the capacity of global capital markets—and bankrupt not only the programs themselves but the entire federal government.
These real-world impacts will be felt when currently unfunded liabilities need to be paid. In theory, the Medicare and Social Security trust funds have at least some money to pay a portion of the bills that are coming due. In actuality, the cupboard is bare: 100% of the payroll taxes for these programs were spent in the same year they were collected.

In exchange for the payroll taxes that aren't paid out in benefits to current retirees in any given year, the trust funds got nonmarketable Treasury debt. Now, as the baby boomers' promised benefits swamp the payroll-tax collections from today's workers, the government has to swap the trust funds' nonmarketable securities for marketable Treasury debt. The Treasury will then have to sell not only this debt, but far more, in order to pay the benefits as they come due.

When combined with funding the general cash deficits, these multitrillion-dollar Treasury operations will dominate the capital markets in the years ahead, particularly given China's de-emphasis of new investment in U.S. Treasurys in favor of increasing foreign direct investment, and Japan's and Europe's own sovereign-debt challenges.

When the accrued expenses of the government's entitlement programs are counted, it becomes clear that to collect enough tax revenue just to avoid going deeper into debt would require over $8 trillion in tax collections annually. That is the total of the average annual accrued liabilities of just the two largest entitlement programs, plus the annual cash deficit.

Nothing like that $8 trillion amount is available for the IRS to target. According to the most recent tax data, all individuals filing tax returns in America and earning more than $66,193 per year have a total adjusted gross income of $5.1 trillion. In 2006, when corporate taxable income peaked before the recession, all corporations in the U.S. had total income for tax purposes of $1.6 trillion. That comes to $6.7 trillion available to tax from these individuals and corporations under existing tax laws.

In short, if the government confiscated the entire adjusted gross income of these American taxpayers, plus all of the corporate taxable income in the year before the recession, it wouldn't be nearly enough to fund the over $8 trillion per year in the growth of U.S. liabilities. Some public officials and pundits claim we can dig our way out through tax increases on upper-income earners, or even all taxpayers. In reality, that would amount to bailing out the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon. Only by addressing these unsustainable spending commitments can the nation's debt and deficit problems be solved.

Neither the public nor policy makers will be able to fully understand and deal with these issues unless the government publishes financial statements that present the government's largest financial liabilities in accordance with well-established norms in the private sector. When the new Congress convenes in January, making the numbers clear—and establishing policies that finally address them before it is too late—should be a top order of business, but it won't happen.

Once again let's go over this, the feds have three big expenses, Medicare, Social Security and the defense budget. You can always tell who wrote the article about deficit spending because they never mention the defense budget. S.S. is easy to fix, increase the contributions and make workers stay in the work force longer. Medicare is the *****, I agree with the article we do need to find a way to bring the numbers way down or we really are in deep do do.

[DEVOREFLYER]

Punch the numbers in the future and you will see that Defence while large it is not the main problem, also SS, Medicare and Medicaid is not listed. Check out the Guberment pension number, kinda like the problem California and many states have. Oh, I forgot about San Bernardino and Stockton.

[etucker1959]

What it means is that the hardcore Dems./Liberals will continue to vote the same way, they will self implode, look at California no matter how f'd up this state is they keep electing the same idiots. Independents or borderline Dems. that voted for Obama will not vote for the Democratic party again if they take their "victory" too far left. I am hoping that the "victory" will not enable the radical left of the party (who Obama really is) into thinking they have some kind of referendum to take this country in a direction that will cause greater economic harm.

Obama radical left are you kidding me!!!!! Many liberals say "Obama is to much of a moderate." Do I have to start naming all the crappy Republican idea's Obama continued. I tell you what Seal, everytime Obama does something radical please let me know. Most people are just afraid because their party didn't win.