logo

  New Zealand Immigration Guide









Cindy
28th December 2006, 01:44 AM
WORLDNETDAILY EXCLUSIVE

Real U.S. shortfall: $4.6 trillion in red
'Taxing 100% of all wages, salaries, corporate profits would not eliminate a deficit of this magnitude'
Posted: December 17, 2006
11:45 p.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi

The real 2006 federal budget deficit was $4.6 trillion, not a previously reported $248.2 billion, according to the 2006 Financial Report of the United States Government as released by the Treasury Department Friday.

"The 2006 federal budget deficit of $4.6 trillion is $1.1 trillion more than the 2005 federal budget deficit," econometrician John Williams, who publishes the website Shadow Government Statistics, told WND. "The Bush administration is in an untenable situation with a budget deficit this dramatic. Taxing 100 percent of all wages, salaries, and corporate profits would not eliminate a deficit of this magnitude, and cutting Social Security and Medicare spending is politically impossible."

In his subscription newsletter, Williams comments that the GAAP accounting numbers reported in the 2006 Treasury report show that, "the actual deficit number was nearly 19-times the size of the gimmicked 'official' deficit for 2006 of $248 billion. Total obligations were 4.2-times annual U.S. gross domestic product (GDP)."

The difference between the $248 billion "official" budget deficit numbers and the $4.6 trillion budget deficit reported in the 2006 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.

The calculations in the 2006 Financial Report of the United States Government are calculated on a GAAP basis ("Generally Accepted Accounting Practices") that includes 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.

"Truthfully," Williams points 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 2006 Financial Report of the United States Government also show that the GAAP negative net worth of the federal government has increased to $53.1 trillion, while the total federal obligations under GAAP accounting now total $54.6 trillion.

"The Treasury is right in that Social Security and Medicare must be shown as liabilities on the federal balance sheet in the year they accrue," 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 explained to 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."

In a letter included in the 2006 Financial Report of the United States Government, David M. Walker, the comptroller general of the United States, commented on the $53 trillion federal government GAAP accounted negative net worth by noting, "This translates to a current burden of about $170,000 per American or approximately $440,000 per American household."

Remarkably, the U.S. Government Accountability Office refused to certify or render an opinion on the consolidated financial statements contained in the 2006 Financial Report of the United States Government, noting serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense, the federal government's inability to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies, and the federal government's ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements.

In his letter, David Walker commented that until these financial reporting problems were resolved within the federal government, the problems outlined in the audit report "will continue to have adverse implications for the federal government and American taxpayers."

"That's an understatement," Williams told WND.

"What the comptroller of the United States is telling us is that as bad as a $4.6 trillion federal budget deficit and a $53.1 trillion GAAP negative net worth are today, the situation with the Bush administration federal budget deficit might even be worse yet if the government’s overall bad accounting procedures could be fixed. With truly accurate GAAP reporting by the various administrative agencies, the 2006 financial report of the federal government would have shown even larger deficits and a larger negative net worth, hard as that may be to imagine."


After the above, I can't help but to feel the urgency to get out more than ever! :wah

stu70
28th December 2006, 04:24 AM
Trust me you, US economic affairs have pile load of people around the world worried about themselves. US has been living on "borrowed" money and credit for sooooooo long that now when a country such as China decides to dump US currency holdings, American dollar will go straight to Antartica! Very informative article , thanks for sharing.

CjChris
28th December 2006, 06:46 AM
We can't wait to "get out" too because of the above reasons and dozens more!! Thanks for posting!

Christine

Ana&Steve
28th December 2006, 08:49 AM
:uhoh Yep, we're feelin' it!
Ana

Jenny & Mark
31st December 2006, 04:25 PM
Canada will unfortunately follow :(. Even if our government pays off all federal, provincial, and municipal debt, we will likely be pulled down with US as the vast majority of our economy is tied to the US.

Mark.

stu70
1st January 2007, 04:47 AM
The silver lining is the drive for new alliances with the economies of the East. More Canada diversifies its export market, better it will be for this nation. Dependency on the USA markets (a waning power) alone is the biggest problem for Canada. USA is like what UK used to be in its dying days as an Imperial power. Now no one would want to go to UK(no offence meant to anyone from there) for job or higher education. Same thing might be in the cards for the US in not too distant a future....

Trigirl
1st January 2007, 03:12 PM
Now no one would want to go to UK(no offence meant to anyone from there) for job or higher education

Yes thats so right - absolutely zero inward immigration into the UK and definitely no-one in the whole world would want an oxford or cambridge degree....

stu70
1st January 2007, 03:45 PM
Like I already said, no offence meant to anyone from there. There was a time when people chose to go to UK for higher education as THE destination(say a few decades ago). Barring a few places(you mentioned), I would not say there is any tremendous lineup now at schools there as is the case with places in the US. Again, not trying to be offensive, it is a point I am making; there were times when all things British were "gold standard". I am sorry but that ain't the case anymore. But I digress...
Happy New Year :cheers

anna_c
1st January 2007, 04:02 PM
Stu, I'm not offended in any way by your comment, but you phrased it as no-one would want to go to the UK for a job/higher education, not that it's not the gold standard/most popular place. The latter is likely the case, but as Trigirl pointed out, the former is inaccurate.

Trigirl
1st January 2007, 04:04 PM
i didn't take any offence - i was just pointing out that it was a bit of a silly thing to say. i have plenty of issues with the UK and i've certainly never seen all things british as being any kind fo "gold standard" - but to say that noone wants to go to london for a job or to go to uni in the uk is just plain daft.

on the uni thing - i agree that only oxford or cambridge are likely to challenge the likes of yale, harvard and MIT but there are a fair few british unis ranked in the worlds top 100. most of them are still attracting their fair share of overseas students too. sure there's not the number of them that there is in the US but then there's also not anything like the same population....

and a happy new year to you also. its been odd celebrating it in a warm summer for the first time!

stu70
1st January 2007, 05:13 PM
I stand corrected. My statement might have been too sweeping. I did not mean to demean any place or anybody. Cheers.

Super_BQ
21st January 2007, 09:27 AM
I agree, US's national debt is of great concern (and always has been for the past 30 years). Here's an article with Bernanke's concern.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070118/bs_nm/usa_fed_bernanke_dc

Though the US may appear to have major debt (and I totally agree with Bernanke's concern), we need to remind ourselves that almost every developed nation has growing debt. It is also important to note that fiscal policy and monetary policy are entirely two different issues and both of these factors for the US will never compare to the UK or in NZ.
You could assume that the most important factor is 'the country's ability to pay the debt off'. Sure the US has trillions of debt, but don't forget the US has over 300 million people. All with a GDP/capita that exceeds most developed nations. In comparison to say China, which has over 1.4 billion people, the country would have a very difficult time in repayment of any major debt the country has. Mainly because their fiscal & monetary policies are entirely different to the western world.

The Iraq war has cost the Americans very dearly. But from a long term perspecitve, this war is of no different than the wars of N/S Korea and Vietnam. Remember, the US has lost the war against Vietnam and the country has seen little development. While South Korea has greatly advanced without the communist regiem of Kim Jung Il. (look at where all our LCD moitors and memory chips come from).

Will the US $ crash? I highly doubt it because even at current levels, the other countries have seen their currency this strong against the US some 15 years ago. It was during President Reagan -> Clinton's time tha the US currency became greatly overvalued. Actually in the late 70s, $1 Canadian was worth more than $1 US and i'm pretty sure the NZ$ was stronger than the US by that same period.

In summary, when the US Fed chairman expresses growing concern that the US is taking on too much debt, this is no different than your bank coming back to you and say your house mortgage is falling behind. Because at the end of the day, it's up to the bank's lending manager to assess you're ability to pay back that loan or not.

BQ

Super_BQ
21st January 2007, 09:54 AM
stu70,

More Canada diversifies its export market, better it will be for this nation. Dependency on the USA markets (a waning power) alone is the biggest problem for Canada.

I'm sorry but I would have to disagree. If the dependancy was not good for the country, then you would see the weakening of the currency. What Canada has seen is more and more trade with the US and i'm confident that the Canadian $ will be on par with the US in the next decade. After all, it's only natural that the more trade you do with 1 country, the more likely your currency will closely match to that country's currency.

On the extreme sense, countries that focus too much on export suffer greatly. Look at Japan for example, they were the king in producing electronics throghout the 70s and 80s. Now the only news we see in Japan is another bank on the verge of bankrupcy. All those years of excessivly high exports has made the YEN too strong that their products have become priced off the market.

In a better sense, the country that opens it's doors to more trade will benefit from greater competition. The consumers will benefit from lower prices and more selection of products. (there are breast cancer fighting drugs available in the US/Can but not available in NZ). I'll use the recent case with Australia. The big fires there have burned most of their banana plantation. But because Australia is known to have over protectionism in trade, no Phillipino bananas are allwed to be imported. So banana consumers there are forced to see $10/kg bananas.

country such as China decides to dump US currency holdings, American dollar will go straight to Antartica!

Bush has often commented that China should not be pegged to the US $ and has made attempts to get China's RMB floated on world open market. However, it's in best interest for China to NOT dump the US currency because the majority of it's economic boom has been tied to the US investment.

BQ

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15