PDA

View Full Version : Deficit, "we've been hiding the bottom line"



Sid_Vicious
08-03-2006, 10:04 AM
Wish I could set my own accounting rules. Glad I don't have children to inherit these crook's hand me downs...sid


The federal government keeps two sets of books.

The set the government promotes to the public has a healthier bottom line: a $318 billion deficit in 2005.

The set the government doesn't talk about is the audited financial statement produced by the government's accountants following standard accounting rules. It reports a more ominous financial picture: a $760 billion deficit for 2005. If Social Security and Medicare were included as the board that sets accounting rules is considering the federal deficit would have been $3.5 trillion.

Congress has written its own accounting rules which would be illegal for a corporation to use because they ignore important costs such as the growing expense of retirement benefits for civil servants and military personnel.

<more at url>

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060803/1a_coverart03.art_dom.htm

Gayle in MD
08-03-2006, 10:28 AM
Martin,
I had read about this some time ago, and then, they were saying 3 trillion, already, another half trillion higher! Costs, are just one more thing the this administration has lied about. We're not going to ever know how much they're hiding, until bush is out of there, or the Democrats take control of both houses, and/or the white House.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
08-03-2006, 10:33 AM
Gayle,
This double set of accounting practice has been going on much longer than just the past 6 years. Nobody in the government wants us to know the true accounting...in fact, there probably isn't anyone in the government who even knows where all the money goes!
When GW is long gone, the practice of hiding money will continue.
Steve

Gayle in MD
08-03-2006, 11:15 AM
That's probably true, but we keep hoping that the next bunch will be better than the last bunch. We've all been disapponted plenty, now things are so ciritcal with these high deficits, and everything else that's happening, we really need a miracle in the next elections.

Hey, I know you know I'm not going to vote for any Republicans, but there have been a couple times I didn't vote for any Dems, too.

I'm going to vote a straight Democratic ticket, but even at that, if I have another Democratic option, I will still vote for new blood. I really think that the longer they stay in there, the more crooked they get! Sometimes we just need to clean house all the way around! And I'm still hoping for new blood in our next presidential elections.

It's disgusting, isn't it?

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
08-03-2006, 11:21 AM
I think we are all discusted with the whole bunch in Washington and many will be voting just to have a change and I'm not saying that's all bad. It's just that we have no really good alternatives in either party. Anyone who has the gonads to make change will either not be elected or change their philosophy to "get reelected at any cost".

I remember a theory once that everyone should vote against incumbents, not matter what and we would have a much better government in any case. The corrks don't have nearly as much time to learn the rules of larceny in DC.

Deeman
still voting for Hillary in 2008....

Gayle in MD
08-03-2006, 11:30 AM
sound about right to me. I sometimes think we should avoid voting for relative of past servers! Sarbanes is retiring in Maryland, so who's stepping up to the plate, his son, like it's just handed on down to the next generation automatically! I don't know a thing about his some, but if there's a democratic atternative, or an amazing Independent, he won't be getting my vote...even though Sarbanes has done a fairly good job, lately he's just like the rest!

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
08-03-2006, 11:46 AM
I saw a BBS program some time ago...interviewing CEOs.
The Ceo that day said, you should quit the same company after 7 years, because that's the time when you start believing in your own BS. I'm not sure though, that our pols believe any of their BS from day one of throwing their hat in the ring. I'd guess though that after a single term, they no longer "own" their own vote....it's been bought and paid for.
I'd be all for a single term limit...the hidden cost being that 5 yrs in the Senate entitles you to full retirement pay at age 62, last time I looked? Not too shabby, as far as pension plans go...and the avg was around $55k
re: the hidden budget....I also read that present rules allow the President to estimate the military costs, by non-warfare accounting methods...in other words the estimated cost for a war and for a peacetime Army, would be the same.

Gayle in MD
08-03-2006, 11:50 AM
Not bad at all when you consider they only work 70 or 80 days a year, if that...

Gayle in Md.