Federal obligations exceed world GDP

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88851

I realize the source is somewhat suspect, but man, 65 trillion.

[digitalandanalog]

So the U.S is spending more money than the whole world has...sounds like standard policy to me.

Who is going to have the ability to collect after we file for bankruptcy? They'll be even broker than us.

[Hawkmoon]

Yes, when I read that President Obama had said only the Federal government has the resources to pull us through this crisis, I couldn't help wondering just what "resources" he thinks the Fed.gov actually has. It's obvious that the Fed.gov is bankrupt by any definition short of actually filing Chapter 11. Liabilities far exceed assets, and that's the usual definition.

Smoke and mirrors time in Warshington, DC. Who'd a thunk it?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Those "obligations" are future expectations, forecasts, predictions.  They aren't actual, quantified obligations.  Most of that number comes from the expected payouts for welfare programs like social security and medicare.

A lot can change in the next few decades, including what laws are on the books.  We still have time to change the laws and "un-obligate" ourselves of a lot of these welfare programs before we actually have to cut the checks.  Or we may end up obligating ourselves for even more nonsense.  Who knows?

[MicroBalrog]

The real number is about 10.7 trillion if it makes you feel better.

http://zfacts.com/p/461.html

[Standing Wolf]

...I couldn't help wondering just what "resources" he thinks the Fed.gov actually has.

Printing presses: very large, fast printing presses in the keeping of the Treasury department.

[digitalandanalog]

Printing presses: very large, fast printing presses in the keeping of the Treasury department.

Ohh...rampant inflation. I am all aflutter.

[Monkeyleg]

Actually, when he's referring to "resources," I think he means our stuff. Y'know, our homes, cars, savings, etc. Pelosi already wants to grab retirement savings, so why not go after the whole thing?

[Balog]

Those "obligations" are future expectations, forecasts, predictions.  They aren't actual, quantified obligations.  Most of that number comes from the expected payouts for welfare programs like social security and medicare.

A lot can change in the next few decades, including what laws are on the books.  We still have time to change the laws and "un-obligate" ourselves of a lot of these welfare programs before we actually have to cut the checks.  Or we may end up obligating ourselves for even more nonsense.  Who knows?

Given that people have (generally) had tens if not hundreds of thousands of their dollars taken over their career for "social security" wouldn't the fed.gov just saying "oops, sorry can't pay you that back" be criminal? Not to mention political suicide.

[DJJ]

No (the criminal part at least). That's already been to the Supreme Court. They ruled that there is no contract between govt. and taxpayer, that taking the taxes does not obligate govt. to pay out, and govt. can change the rules at any time.

[Monkeyleg]

No (the criminal part at least). That's already been to the Supreme Court. They ruled that there is no contract between govt. and taxpayer, that taking the taxes does not obligate govt. to pay out, and govt. can change the rules at any time.

I don't care what The Robes say. I paid in, and I expect to get back what I paid in, even if it's at gunpoint.

[Balog]

If the Supreme Court has ruled the fed.gov can renege on it's obligations at any time for any reason I'd like to see the case law.