Log in

View Full Version : American Federal obligations exceed world GDP



thinkerOFthoughts
17th February 2009, 06:10
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88851


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.

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.

"The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fiscal year 2009 budget deficit as being $1.2 trillion on a cash basis and that was before taking into consideration the full costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, before the cost of the Obama nearly $800 billion economic stimulus plan, or the cost of the second $350 billion in TARP funds, as well as all current bailouts being contemplated by the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve," he said.

"The federal government's deficit is hemorrhaging at a pace which threatens the viability of the financial system," Williams added. "The popularly reported 2009 [deficit] will clearly exceed $2 trillion on a cash basis and that full amount has to be funded by Treasury borrowing.

"It's not likely this will happen without the Federal Reserve acting as lender of last resort for the Treasury by buying Treasury debt and monetizing the debt," he said.

"Monetizing the debt" is a term used to signify that the Federal Reserve will be required simply to print cash to meet the Treasury debt obligations, acting in this capacity only because the Treasury cannot sell the huge of amount debt elsewhere.

The Treasury has been largely dependent upon foreign buyers, principally China and Japan and other major holders of U.S. dollar foreign exchange reserves, including OPEC buyers purchasing U.S. debt through London.

"The appetite of foreign buyers to purchase continued trillions of U.S. debt has become more questionable as the world has witnessed the rapid deterioration of the U.S. fiscal condition in the current financial crisis," Williams noted.

"Truthfully," Williams pointed out, "there is no Social Security 'lock-box.' There are no funds held in reserve today for Social Security and Medicare obligations that are earned each year. It's only a matter of time until the public realizes that the government is truly bankrupt and no taxes are being held in reserve to pay in the future the Social Security and Medicare benefits taxpayers are earning today."

Calculations from the "2008 Financial Report of the United States Government" also show that the GAAP negative net worth of the federal government has increased to $59.3 trillion while the total federal obligations under GAAP accounting now total $65.5 trillion.

The $65.5 trillion total federal obligations under GAAP accounting not only now exceed four times the U.S. gross domestic product, or GDP, the $65.5 trillion deficit exceeds total world GDP.

"In the seven years of GAAP reporting, we have seen an annual average deficit in excess of $4 trillion, which could not be possibly covered by any form of taxation," Williams argued.

"Shy of the government severely slashing social welfare programs, federal deficits of this magnitude are beyond any hope of containment, government or otherwise," he said.

"Put simply, there is no way the government can possibly pay for the level of social welfare benefits the federal government has promised unless the government simply prints cash and debases the currency, which the government will increasingly be doing this year," Williams said, explaining in more detail why he feels the government is now in the process of monetizing the federal debt.

"Social Security and Medicare must be shown as liabilities on the federal balance sheet in the year they accrue according to GAAP accounting," Williams argues. "To do otherwise is irresponsible, nothing more than an attempt to hide the painful truth from the American public. The public has a right to know just how bad off the federal government budget deficit situation really is, especially since the situation is rapidly spinning out of control.

"The federal government is bankrupt," Williams told WND. "In a post-Enron world, if the federal government were a corporation such as General Motors, the president and senior Treasury officers would be in federal penitentiary."

Dang!! would you look at that!!

jake williams
17th February 2009, 06:19
In the interests of being accurate, they're measuring this over a period which, to the last penny, will go through 2050. It's not very good economics. By then, "accounting" for growth (and inflation?), it won't be near as shocking as "total world GDP". Most of this talk is a scam to try to eliminate welfare programs like social security. The site you linked has an ad for Ann Coulter.

thinkerOFthoughts
17th February 2009, 06:40
This was a article posted in a different forum I go to. and yes this other forum is kinda conservative, I didn't really think twice I just thought it was interesting. I dont endorse the site or anything tho.:cool:

GPDP
17th February 2009, 17:57
Yeah, this sounds like a load of right-wing "omg we can't pay for shit anymore so we gotta start dismantling programs for those undeserving poor to reduce spending, conveniently ignoring that the military takes up half of the federal budget" shit.

MMIKEYJ
17th February 2009, 18:23
Yeah, this sounds like a load of right-wing "omg we can't pay for shit anymore so we gotta start dismantling programs for those undeserving poor to reduce spending, conveniently ignoring that the military takes up half of the federal budget" shit.
we need to do both cut overseas and domestic spending.

We could run a surplus, start paying off our debt, create sound money and get rid of income taxes.. and govt will shrink to the benefit of the people.

GPDP
17th February 2009, 18:43
How are you posting in this section despite your restriction?

Lynx
17th February 2009, 20:48
In the interests of being accurate, they're measuring this over a period which, to the last penny, will go through 2050. It's not very good economics. By then, "accounting" for growth (and inflation?), it won't be near as shocking as "total world GDP". Most of this talk is a scam to try to eliminate welfare programs like social security. The site you linked has an ad for Ann Coulter.
This makes me wonder if there is any limit to how much money the USA can borrow or print.

jake williams
18th February 2009, 01:32
This makes me wonder if there is any limit to how much money the USA can borrow or print.
Well look, the spending is certainly extreme and there are practical limits so far as not becoming Zimbabwe. And naturally I don't have any love for capitalist states and their economic programs. But being fair and putting things in context, there is a bit of misrepresentation involved. It gets very basic bourgeois capitalist economics wrong, and leftist critiques of the plan, I think, are quite different.

MMIKEYJ
18th February 2009, 03:01
How are you posting in this section despite your restriction?
If I couldnt post in politics or economics I dont think there'd be much of a purpose coming here.

MMIKEYJ
18th February 2009, 03:01
This makes me wonder if there is any limit to how much money the USA can borrow or print.
Technically, no limit to how much they can print.

Lynx
18th February 2009, 03:09
Well look, the spending is certainly extreme and there are practical limits so far as not becoming Zimbabwe. And naturally I don't have any love for capitalist states and their economic programs. But being fair and putting things in context, there is a bit of misrepresentation involved. It gets very basic bourgeois capitalist economics wrong, and leftist critiques of the plan, I think, are quite different.
They appear to be questioning the premise that economic growth makes deficit spending sustainable. A similar premise created NINJA loans that were tied to rising house prices - we now see how well that worked out.


Technically, no limit to how much they can print.
Well then, make it so!

cyu
19th February 2009, 02:21
We could run a surplus


Surplus? Let me tell you about a surplus. Assuming you mean a trade surplus and if a surplus means that you are exporting more than you are importing - is that really a good thing? It basically just means your nation is being someone else's slave.

On the other hand, if by surplus you just mean that your economy is able to produce more than it wants to consume, then yes, that's a good thing.



start paying off our debt


Fuck the debt - tax the citizens so you can give more money to wealthy bankers? Go back to your capitalist hell. Tell the bankers they can shove it - or just assume democratic control over them. Use your money for improving the productive ability of your nation instead.

MMIKEYJ
19th February 2009, 05:12
Surplus? Let me tell you about a surplus. Assuming you mean a trade surplus and if a surplus means that you are exporting more than you are importing - is that really a good thing? It basically just means your nation is being someone else's slave.

On the other hand, if by surplus you just mean that your economy is able to produce more than it wants to consume, then yes, that's a good thing.



Fuck the debt - tax the citizens so you can give more money to wealthy bankers? Go back to your capitalist hell. Tell the bankers they can shove it - or just assume democratic control over them. Use your money for improving the productive ability of your nation instead.

well actually I would say the best thing would be to remove the income tax and replace it with nothing... and then cut massive federal spending.

The bankers have us over a barrel right now, so we have only a couple choices,.. either we repudiate the debt, or we start paying it off. The way some of these crooks operate I wouldnt mind repudiating the debt, but not sure how thatll affect us.


I mean surplus as in budget surplus.. but yes, a trade surplus would be a good thing IMO.. its at least better than running a deficit.

cyu
20th February 2009, 20:58
the best thing would be to remove the income tax and replace it with nothing


Right after we allow employees to assume democratic control of the companies they work at.


I wouldnt mind repudiating the debt, but not sure how thatll affect us.


You'll get capital flight. But we've got that covered. See http://www.infoshop.org/rants/yu1.html



a trade surplus would be a good thing IMO.. its at least better than running a deficit.


How so?

ckaihatsu
20th February 2009, 23:33
Left-nationalists are still nationalists because they absolutely *won't* say "Downsize the imperialist military to a bunch of toy guns."

Their other Achilles' Heel, if you didn't know already, is one word: 'lobbying'. After they drone on endlessly about their idealized yesteryear Jeffersonian agrarian utopia, then ask them, "Yeah, but how would you prevent the lobbying of government by big corporate (business) interests?"

Then enjoy the silence that can only be otherwise attained by venturing into natural underground caves.

We need to be clear about how the global monetary system, as a whole, is a grand bourgeois sham -- they twiddle a top-level ratio here and there to keep the see-saw from tilting too much one way or the other, but regardless it's everyone else who gets taken for a ride.



The current crisis of international finance only begs the *political* question -- if the world's economy and productivity is currently set into motion by the credit system, then *who* makes the decisions about credit and credit worthiness?


[...]


I'd like to add that, since the world's currencies are entirely relative and float in relation to one another, the biggest lever of intervention that governments have is the * fractional reserve requirement * for banks. Normally the average person on the street would say "the interest rate", meaning the government central bank's setting of its own interest rate, in response to market conditions -- but this is an ineffectual and meaningless control today (for the U.S.) since the engine is already flooded with gas and there's no place to go anyway because markets are drying up.

According to the following source China's central bank is doing the *opposite* of the U.S. central bank -- China has the problem of *too much* value in its currency / economy, so it is vault-stuffing -- taking every imaginative measure it can think of to keep the value *off* the market and out of its currency.

This is because it wants to continue to export its cheap goods, but this business has already become so successful that if it let the full revenue from its sales actually reflect in its currency, the value of its currency would rise very high, relative to other currencies like the U.S. dollar. This would make the face-value *price* of its exports *very expensive*, on the basis of the currency alone, and that would hurt sales.

So the People's Bank of China, its central bank, *raises* the ratio of reserve value required in the bank, relative to the amount of currency in circulation. According to this source it is now at 16.5% -- basically a 6-to-1 ratio of currency-to-reserves.


[...]


Here's the interesting part: Every currency has a *different* reserve ratio. If I recall correctly, the U.S.'s has now *dropped* to something like 8%, or a 12-to-1 ratio of currency-to-reserves. This is because it has increasingly needed *credit* to pay for its imports from sellers like China. By *lowering* the amount of reserve value it *officially* needs to keep on hand, putting * 12 times * that value out into the economy, it is over-extending the *actual* value, in reserves, that it has on hand, relative to China's * 6 *-to-1 ratio. This is in addition to the U.S.'s massive national debt and current accounts deficit.

To help out its struggling #1 customer China has been buying U.S. Treasuries in kind, effectively adding its massive reserves of value to the U.S. economy, and thus backing up its debt.

So in all accuracy this is a gargantuan *merger* of nation-state economies, much like the integration of the Southern economy to the Northern economy in the U.S. after its Civil War. Right now the U.S. as a whole is the "South", straggling along with a mountain of debt, funded by the largesse -- and forced economic symbiosis -- of China's booming economy, thanks to the hyper-exploitation of Chinese workers.

From the proletariat's point of view this manipulation of reserve currency requirements is the businessmen's jotting-on-the-paper-napkin over martinis at the bar. Just because the various officials of the bourgeoisie have come to a gentleman's agreement on how to sort out the varying levels of national value *doesn't* mean that it helps out our situation of employment, union organizing, labor solidarity, or wages.

We need to emphasize that, despite the historic financial fallout all around, the world's bourgeoisie still remains in *political* control, in a feudal-like lording over us, which must be ended with global labor solidarity.


Chris





--




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --