National Debt is far closer to 65 trillion dollars than 18.5 trillion and is wildly out of control.

The Hill:   The former U.S. comptroller general says the real U.S. debt is closer to about $65 trillion than the oft-cited figure of $18 trillion.

Dave Walker, who headed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, said when you add up all of the nation’s unfunded liabilities, the national debt is more than three times the number generally advertised.

“If you end up adding to that $18.5 trillion the unfunded civilian and military pensions and retiree healthcare, the additional underfunding for Social Security, the additional underfunding for Medicare, various commitments and contingencies that the federal government has, the real number is about $65 trillion rather than $18 trillion, and it’s growing automatically absent reforms,” Walker told host John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable” on New York’s AM-970 in an interview airing Sunday.

If we took ALL of the money earned by the rich, we would only cover 9% of the total [real] annual debt, and there is more.

<<< Here is a chart based on CBO numbers,  putting an end to the myth that Bush spent wildly,  during his 8 years.  The fact of the matter is this:  his 8 yr average was not that far removed from Clinton's running average,  and 40% of Obama's totals.  Keep in mind that it was the Bush debt Obama promised to cut in half,  not his own debt.  Of course, he struck out on both counts,  so who really cares what he said  --  he sure as hell doesn't.

In a government report found here,  we learn these facts:

The US Government has a public debt of 17 trillion dollars against total assets, including federal buildings and forest properties,  of 4.7 trillion.  This does not include the 17 trillion we think is owed to Social Security collections,  monies received but transferred to the general fund and use for paybacks,  general fraud,  and other federal "necessities."  Nor,  does it include the 42 trillion we owe ourselves because of Medicare.  Understand that the total annual economies of every nation in the world is around 70 trillion dollars,  the same we owe in public and internal debt.  A disgrace,  and those who speak out against this idiocy are the ones who are the "whacko's" in our upside down domestic reality.  Nuts.

Along these same lines and using the debt accrued during 2011,  officially set at 1.3 trillion for that year,  according to USA Today,  if we add in the annual payouts to Social Security and Medicare, that annual debt rises from 1.3 to 5 trillion dollars,  for that particular year.  Obama promised to cut "the annual debt in half."  Of course he was talking about the Bush debt of $400,000 billion per year,  not the Obama debt of 1.3 or 5 trillion (which ever).  In the end,  virtually all of his 2008 promises have not be fulfilled, to this day, and there were well over 340 of promises made during that period of grandiose lies and personal appearances.

More than this,  we know that if we took every single dollar earned by those who make more than $250,000 per year,  it would pay just 38% of our annual budget and only 9% if you add in our welfare debt.  When Obama speaks of the rich paying their "fair share,"  he only reveals his own stupidity on the issue.  Turns out that he is better suited for parties,  golf, fundraising and vacations. Too bad he had to stop along the way to play "president."  

Point of post:  When the Chinese stop accepting our debt request for a mere 6% profit margin,  we will be in a world of hurt  -  and no one in DC gives a care.

A giant "we told you so" as the dufus nation continues to pretend that it has a president who knows what he is doing. Update: we show 200 trillion in debt in 75 years.

From the NationalReview.com,  we learn - no surprise to anyone on the Right, that  "Obamacare will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today."  

Remember their lies:  first,  ObamaCare was going to save a family of four,  $2,500 a year on their health care and cut the national debt by nearly a trillion dollars,  over the course of the next decade.  Then,  we learned,  just 18 months after Obama signed this moronic piece of legislation,  that just the opposite had occurred,    it was going to cost the nation more than a trillion and each family of four,  more than $2,500 --  a swing of $5,000 per family.   Last month,  we were told that  7 million Americans will be cut from the program,  altogether,  because their employers cannot afford the cost and are surrendering to Central Planning,  which can't accept them,  now,  because of a written limitation,  in the reform law,  itself.    And, now,  the news of this day.

The article continues:  "Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), who requested the report, revealed the findings this morning at a Senate Budget Committee hearing. The report, he said, “confirms everything critics and Republicans were saying about the faults of this bill,” and “dramatically proves that the promises made assuring the nation that the largest new entitlement program in history would not add one dime to the deficit were false.” 

Don't think for a minute that this latest report is the final time bomb,  on ObamaCare.  Count on this thing being more of a sore than the 42 trillion deficit caused by Medicare.  Stop voting for the Democrats who have don't know how to add and subtract,  or who can't think and write above 9th grade level  (Obama).  

Update:  understand that the 6.2 trillion is the anticipated unfunded liability for this program in the coming 75 years.  We only wish that this would be the case  . . . .  we could actually live with that projection.  Sadly,  the correct way of looking at this statement is this,  the 6.2 trillion is what these financial geniuses are admitting to,  just 23 months after the bill's signing in March (27th) of 2010.  The law has not been fully written,  even to this day,  and will not be fully implemented until the end of 2014.  

You should know that Medicare is now,  an integral part of ObamaCare,  and carries a 42 trillion dollar   burden as to unfunded liabilites  --  accumulated since its inception beginning with 1965, 46 years ago.  

Put that in your computer bank:  42 trillion in 46 years years.

Now,  ask yourselves,  how bad is this going to get?  6 trillion in 2 years is well over 200 trillion,  in 75 years  -  plus  Medicare's burden,  which will likely double from its current 42 trillion deficit. 

In 33 seconds, a Democrat Senator explains why her party is not qualified to lead on the spending issue. (see the video).

In this video clip,  the Senator argues that “discretionary spending” is not “out of control.”  Geeeeesh.  We now borrow 42 cents of every single dollar we spend,  each year,  and the Democrat leadership limits its denial to “discretionary spending.”   Can anyone say,  “Straw dog ?”  

Apparently,  Democrats do not understand that our spending crisis is not limited to discretionary spending.  Structural  over-spending is part of the problem,  as well,  and, no one but a blind sheik would deny this fact.  

Lets say that our current rate of interest, paid on the money we have borrowed,  rises from a current interest rate of 3.5 percent to 7 percent,  overnight,  upon news of a second and more serious downgrade from S&P and or Moody’s.  It is estimated that we will spend $750 billion on interest,  alone,  by the year 2020,  assuming interest rates for that debt,  remain the same.  If our scenario,  above,  happens,  the interest rate would rise to 1.5 trillion dollars per year  --  a bill that absolutely has to be paid,  a little higher than what we over-spend,  each year.  At that point,  the most harsh cuts in American history,  would have to go into effect,  immediately.  There would not be enough tax revenues available to make a difference.  And the Dems see no problem. 

Source:  Diane Black House,gov.

Seriously, how much should be cut in terms of expense? We have the answer as we ask two questions.

 <<<  Sorry folks,  the fiscal cliff disaster has past the point of no return, regardless of whatever the headlines of this week say. 

The Democrats love to ask this question:  "If the GOP is not going to raise taxes on the rich,  how are they going to pay for the money lost in that move?"   You should know that the Bush tax cuts for the rich,  totaled a nominal $700 billion dollars over the course of ten years.

I have a better question and it is the Democrats who should be asked  (as in "hounded) this question:  "If you are not going to raise taxes on the middle class,  how are you going to pay for that 'lost' income ?"  Understand that the Bush cuts to the middle class totaled 3.8 trillion dollars. 

Point of post:  Here is the critical  fact central to effective spending cuts:  if the congress is not talking about cutting 4.5 trillion dollars over the course of the next ten years,  it are lying to the American people and setting the American citizenry up for one of the worst financial disaster in world history and, that is not hyperbole.   

That "4.5 trillion" number comes from adding the totals in tax savings for the "rich"  and Obama's version of the "middle class."  If the question is legitimate when asked about 'lost' income from the rich,  it certainly is legitimate when asked about lost income from the middle class.  While the Dems have busied themselves buying votes ad infinitum ,  their long term intentions are to wait on the necessary cuts to Social Security and Medicare until the ceiling caves in around us,  and,  in that event,  they are hoping to have positioned themselves to continue their blame game,  and turn the coming disaster into a serious electionary plus for them.   

Understand that beginning in 2009,  expenses for Social Security have exceeded collections.  In 2011,  that deficit was in excess of nearly 47 billion dollars (jds-midknightreview / remember-obama-and-dems-telling) .  In other words,  Social Security is already broke and,  apparently,  readers of this Review are the only folks on the face of God's green earth who are aware of this fact.  

As far as Medicare is concerned,  it now totals 42 trillion in unfunded liabilities.  

To illustrate just how out of control this program is,  consider this fact:   when we take all of the world's economies,  some 220 countries,  they require a collective grand total of around 68 trillion dollars per year to operate their programs and support their national needs.  Medicare totals 2/3's of all the world's economies combined.  And, still,  the self-serving, socialist grounded unions in this country and their Democat/Progressive leadership refuses to admit that there is any kind of problem at all.  

As of the 2012 election, we now have an electorate that cares not for the facts of this matter.  They don't care,  because they believe that they will be allowed to further gut the system without penalty as they follow the lead of Progressive leadership,  and continue to decimate the business community in this country. 

Sadly,  there may no cure for selfish and stupid,  when the two are combined for the purpose of gaining a political edge.  

__________________

After it is all said and one,  we cannot cut or tax our way to safety.  This article in Forbes,  gives us a clear picture why the "tax and cut" will not work,  if it stands alone and the "solution."  

What has to happen before "we" are debt free as a nation - in other words, why "debt free" is never going to happen.

Best show on the Tube but the worst
political idea of all time, and the Democrats
think it is a great idea  -  in fact, under Obama,
our nation is having to deal with this crap for
the first time in our history.  

<<<<< Best show on the Tube but the worst political idea of all time

The latest battle over student loan interest rates is,   once again,  all about spending and the increasing national debt.  In a word, The Democrats don’t care about the National Debt and the Establishment Republicans only pretend to care.  

You should know that, for the first time in our history,  a political party - the Democrats - are running against a "balanced budget."  They not only oppose a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which would order Congress on this matter and assure a stable future,  they have no intentions of cutting spending to a point that does not increase debt.  How could they?   We overspend our annual [tax] income by a full 42% each and every year.  In simple terms,  this means that for every dollar your kid spends,  she has to borrow 42 cents from you to pay her bill or buy her next toy.   

The new mantra (beginning with Obama) includes a love affair with the myopic idiocy of  "fairness" when  "legislative responsibility" and "societal survival" should be the exciting themes of the day.    No one cares about any of this in Greece and look what is happening to that country.  Many believe that Greece is a predictor of all socialistically  permissive societies including ours.   With the advent of the Anarchist Movement during the Obama years (Occupy and Democrat lead allies),   we now know that violence in the streets will be the response to any effort to bring domestic spending under control - so our politicians continue to play their games and the rest of use continue stock up with guns and ammunition.  

If it were not for the TEA party influence,  no one would be talking, seriously,  about what is happening to our nation via the single issue of indebtedness.  The sad truth of the matter is this: we owe so much money that paying the debt down to “Zero” is totally out of the question.  Don’t get me wrong.  I am a “debt hater” and I support a "balanced budget amendment"  to the US Constitution.    I am simply admitting to the obvious.  We, as a nation,  have a debt that will never be decreased,  much less, paid off.  Heck, the interest on the national debt currently costs us $494 billion per year or 4.9 trillion in ten years.  You are a dupe if you believe America will ever pay its outstanding public debt. 

Think about it . . . . . . . paleeeezzz.  Everyone has a fit the moment our legislators (I.e. Paul Ryan) start talking about 4 or 5 trillion dollars in cuts.  Correct ???   

In fact,  no one is talking about more than 4 or 5 trillion in cuts.    Understand that anytime,  anyone, is talking about “trillions,”  they are talking about “10 years” in the same breath.  So, when the fiscal hero, Paul Ryan,   speaks of  "5 trillion in cuts,"  he is only talking about  neutralizing our national interest  payment.   We are still overspending by 42%.  

Sidebar:  Indeed,  if we held the interest payment to a “sum zero game” per the Ryan cuts,   saw our GDP grow at the rate of 5 to 8 percent annually  (as it did under Reagan),  and held new spending increases to two or three percent per year,    in time,  our debt would vanish  -  understanding that “in time” might mean 50 to 100 years from now  --  but what does an educated Okie know?  

Unless  a formulaic definition as described in my "sidebar," or something similar,    is institutionalized in the form of a Constitutional amendment and prescribed  legislative function,  our politicians will not continue any long term, fiscally responsible agenda,  judging from the historical record.  

And,  as long as a substantial number of big spending politicians are running around,  the only alternative "solution" is a total melt down resulting  in a second and violent civil war, with an outcome that is wholly unpredictable.  And that last statement is precisely why a full-blown civil war must be avoid . . . . . .  but not at all cost.  Freedom is something that remains worth dying for and if you disagree,  maybe you should have a talk with some of our soldiers or break into my home,  late at night,  to steal one of my three computers you don't own.   

At any rate, there is no doubt that we, as a nation,  are at critical mass and  it is "critical" because this nation does not have enough people who care about fiscal responsibility.  "Fairness" as used by the Slickmeister,  is only an excuse for more spending and we all know it.  Sadly, his "fairness agenda" is the open door for so much more, however  -  all of it sinister and none of it in line with the Founding Theories of this nation.  


Update and related article(s):


Occupy plans day of violence and unrest on "May Day," typically a socialist/communist day of celebration for the "laborer."