Shouldnt the Federal Government Use Standard Accounting Rules?

[rushmc 23]

It requires states to do so

Quote

The typical American household would have paid nearly all of its income in taxes last year to balance the budget if the government used standard accounting rules to compute the deficit, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Congress exempts itself from including the cost of promised retirement benefits.

Under those accounting practices, the government ran red ink last year equal to $42,054 per household — nearly four times the official number reported under unique rules set by Congress.

A U.S. household's median income is $49,445, the Census reports.

The big difference between the official deficit and standard accounting: Congress exempts itself from including the cost of promised retirement benefits. Yet companies, states and local governments must include retirement commitments in financial statements, as required by federal law and private boards that set accounting rules.

The deficit was $5 trillion last year under those rules. The official number was $1.3 trillion. Liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and other retirement programs rose by $3.7 trillion in 2011, according to government actuaries, but the amount was not registered on the government's books.

emphasis mine

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

what SS or MC benefits are actually promised to you? Not estimated, but actually promised?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

what SS or MC benefits are actually promised to you? Not estimated, but actually promised?

Had not thought about it other that I may never see it

On the other had, it is promised daily that these benifits are to be considered safe

I do the SS letters telling me what my monthy payout will be

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I do the SS letters telling me what my monthy payout will be

those letters contain a lot of weasel clauses. It provides an estimate only, presuming both that you continue to earn (until you get 35 years in, the estimate makes guesses at your future years) at a similar rate and that the government will have the resources to pay. It warns against the latter explicitly.

As for MC, I don't think it promises anything about benefits, just that you can get it.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I do the SS letters telling me what my monthy payout will be

those letters contain a lot of weasel clauses. It provides an estimate only, presuming both that you continue to earn (until you get 35 years in, the estimate makes guesses at your future years) at a similar rate and that the government will have the resources to pay. It warns against the latter explicitly.

As for MC, I don't think it promises anything about benefits, just that you can get it.

the question raised was do you agree with the Fed gov using its own accounting rules?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

the question raised was do you agree with the Fed gov using its own accounting rules?

I'm telling you that they are in fact complying, since these aren't promised. Nor payable, given the sheer size, esp for medicare.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

the question raised was do you agree with the Fed gov using its own accounting rules?

I'm telling you that they are in fact complying, since these aren't promised. Nor payable, given the sheer size, esp for medicare.

Complying but lieing then?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Complying but lieing then?

yep, within the letter, just like any corporation with good tax accountants.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Complying but lieing then?

yep, within the letter, just like any corporation with good tax accountants.

So you say the Fed gov is using the same accounting pracitces it, by law, requires the states to use?

Cause that is not what USA today is saying

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Complying but lieing then?

yep, within the letter, just like any corporation with good tax accountants.

So you say the Fed gov is using the same accounting pracitces it, by law, requires the states to use?

Cause that is not what USA today is saying

it's simple - you identified a failure that doesn't (technically) exist. State pensions, otoh, are typically codified based on salary and years of service. Those are in fact obligations. I don't think they can undo them if they wanted to.

[lawrocket 3]

Social Security and Medicare have always been "off-budget." It's part of the scam. The fact that Medicare and Social Security have generally been in the black means that they've had funds to spare. So Congress has regularly borrowed from them with the promise to pay them back. It's how the on-budget budgets were balanced in 99 and 2000 - they took money from off-budget and put them on-budget.

The problem now is that we're moving to Medicare and Social Security being in the red. And soon. It means that there won't be money to borrow from it. Recall the debt ceiling fiasco last year? Yeah. The Social Security trust fund doesn't have anything in it. Why? Because every cent was either disbursed or borrowed by the feds. So in order to pay off promised benefits, the money has to come from the general fund. Which means either slashing other parts of the budget or borrowing more to keep the SS trust fund going.

Which the government couldn't do because the debt ceiling was hit!

The deficit is much higher BECAUSE of the free spending of funds for which payment was put to the future. Now the bill is due.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JerryBaumchen 1,468]

Hi rush,

Quote

On the other had, it is promised daily that these benifits are to be considered safe

I spent 30 yrs & 3 weeks as a fed. The manta was ( and probably still is ) that our retirement benefits were only a signature away from being gone.

We lived with the fact that Congress could change them anyway they wanted should they wish to do so.

Nixon had a study made about moving all of us over to Soc. Sec. and the study group concluded that each one of us could sue; and that would have tied up the courts from here to eternity. So he abandoned that effort.

JerryBaumchen