Skip to content

$61 Trillion Debt – Police Gun Down a Man; Threaten to Shoot Witnesses – Romney Supports Global Warming Hoax

June 9, 2011

The $61 Trillion Debt

| Print |  E-mail
Written by Michael Tennant   New American
Thursday, 09 June 2011 09:50

Anyone paying much attention to the news is aware that the U.S. government is now about $14.3 trillion in debt and considering borrowing even more. That $14.3 trillion, however, only includes what the government currently owes. If one includes Uncle Sam’s unfunded liabilities — promised future payments the government does not expect to have revenue to cover — Washington actually owes “a record $61.6 trillion,” according to a recent USA Today analysis.

That “amounts to $527,000 per household,” the newspaper says, which is “more than five times what Americans have borrowed for everything else — mortgages, car loans and other debt.”

The biggest sources of these massive unfunded liabilities are, of course, Medicare and Social Security. With 10,000 baby boomers a day turning 65, making them eligible for full benefits under both programs, it’s not hard to see why.

Medicare accounts for $24.8 trillion in unfunded liabilities, or $212,500 per household. This reflects an influx of 30 million beneficiaries over the next two decades, combined with rising healthcare costs and the prescription drug benefit enacted in 2006. Moreover, writes USA Today,

That $25 trillion is likely an underestimate, Medicare’s actuaries say, because it counts on 165 cost-saving changes in the health care reform law. Many of these are unlikely to occur — such as cutting physician payments 30% by 2012.

Social Security, meanwhile, makes up $21.4 trillion of the unfunded obligations, or $183,400 per household. This liability, the paper explains,

represents the difference between all taxes that will be paid and all benefits received over the lifetimes of everyone in the system now — workers and beneficiaries alike. This is the measure corporations and insurance companies use to assess financial adequacy of their retirement programs.

The government, naturally, does not apply the same standards to itself that it applies to private companies. It only counts taxes to be collected from workers over the next 75 years but not the benefits they will receive in subsequent years, thereby making the program’s long-term deficit seem much, much smaller than it actually is. Further, by counting the Treasury bonds in the mythical Social Security trust fund, the liability is made to appear even smaller. The feds would never let a private business get away with ignoring future financial commitments and claiming that money it owed itself — “like paying off a car loan with a credit card,” as USA Today puts it — was the same as actually possessing that cash. It is simply dishonest. “Bernie Madoff-style accounting,” Robert Wenzel of calls it.

Speaking of dishonest accounting that treats IOUs to oneself as actual cash, federal pension plans are entirely funded by government bonds. (Temporarily suspending such funding is one of the ways Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was able to stave off hitting the debt ceiling for a few months this year.) Between pensions and retiree healthcare, the government has an unfunded liability of $2 trillion, or $17,000 per household.

Lest fans of American global hegemony think that the welfare state is the sole source of the nation’s long-term financial woes, it must be noted that military retirement and disability benefits contribute $3.6 trillion, or $31,200 per household, to the government’s unfunded liabilities. George W. Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so beloved of many critics of excessive government spending, “have contributed to a 46% increase since 2004 in the cost of pension, medical care and disablity [sic] benefits for former service members,” according to USA Today. Obama’s continuation of these wars and his additional incursions into Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya will only pile on more costs.

Where is the government going to get the $61.6 trillion — and probably much more since that is the expected cost in 2011 dollars — that it will need to cover all these shortfalls?

In 2009, former Treasury Department economist Bruce Bartlett calculated that “federal income taxes for every taxpayer would have to rise by roughly 81% to pay all of the benefits promised by [Social Security and Medicare] under current law over and above the payroll tax.” Taxes would have to at least double to cover all the government’s unfunded liabilities, which is politically untenable and would kill the economy if it did take place.

The next option is to borrow the money. But with foreign creditors already skittish about buying more U.S. bonds and America’s credit rating teetering on the brink, who is going to loan Washington $61 trillion more?

In short, there simply is no way that the government can honestly pay everything it has promised, causing Wenzel to remark:

Default is really the only long-term option. It will be done either in straightforward fashion, where the government pays pennies on the dollar for what it owes. Or it will be done in stealth fashion by the Fed printing up dollars to pay for the government obligations, which will create huge price inflation that will screw the average worker and also those on fixed incomes such as retirees.

As bad as the first option is, the second is infinitely worse. Unfortunately, with politicians being notoriously weak-kneed, it is the more likely scenario. This is why the debt ceiling must not be raised and the Federal Reserve must be brought to heel, if not abolished. Only then will spending cuts be forced upon Congress.

Creditors are usually willing to negotiate a debtor’s bills down to a level that person can pay, albeit perhaps with some difficulty, but they would never accept payment of the full debt in Monopoly money. Americans concerned about the future of their country should also be willing to accept fewer government goodies paid in not yet fully debased dollars than to demand everything the government has promised them paid in increasingly worthless currency. The former approach stands a good chance of reviving our declining fortunes; the latter will merely sink them even faster.


Police gun down man in street, threaten to shoot witnesses for filming incident

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Ethan A. Huff
Natural News
June 9, 2011

When Narces Benoit decided to use his cell phone to film Miami Beach police officers gunning down a man sitting in a parked car early Monday morning, he had no idea the same cops would eventually target him as well. According to video evidence and witness testimony, officers pointed a gun at Narces and his girlfriend, threw them to the ground, destroyed his camera and what they thought was the footage he captured, and handcuffed and arrested the couple, all because Narces happened to capture indicting video evidence of the officers’ heinous actions.

The Miami Herald reports that Narces and his girlfriend were driving on Collins Avenue in South Beach, Fla., when they happened upon the shocking tail-end of a police chase involving Raymond Herisse, the suspect in question who had allegedly fled police following a scuffle. When Herisse’s car later came to a stop, officers surrounded the vehicle and unloaded more than 100 rounds at the car, effectively murdering Herisse and injuring four innocent bystanders.

The Miami Beach Police Department (MBPD) has tried to justify their shooting spree by claiming that Herisse attempted to run over officers with his car, but Narces’ video footage, which was salvaged when he discreetly removed his cell phone’s memory card and put it in his mouth before officers destroyed it, shows otherwise. In the video, it is clearly evident that Narces’ vehicle had been stopped both prior to and during the time when the gang of officers murdered him in cold blood.

You can view the video footage for yourself here:…

Perhaps even more disturbing than the actual shooting, though, is the way the police aggressively threatened and intimidated those who witnessed the situation, including Narces and his girlfriend. After allegedly putting guns to their heads and throwing them to the ground, Narces says one officer grabbed his cell phone and said “You want to be [expletive] Paparazzi?” upon which he proceeded to smash the phone and stick it back into Narces’ pocket.

Initially, other officers on the scene denied any awareness that this type of activity had taken place, but the department later admitted that officers had, indeed, confiscated Narces’ and several other witnesses’ phones. Filming such incidents, of course, is perfectly legal, and the officers involved had no right to threaten, confiscate, destroy, or otherwise interfere with the activity of bystanders, but they decided to do it anyway.

Following the incident, the MBPD has come out denying that its officers had held Narces at gunpoint, or that they tried to destroy his phone. The department alleges that Narces had appeared to be fleeing the shooting scene, which prompted them to come after him. This claim, however, does not make any logical sense in light of the situation, and the video footage Narces captured shows that officers pursued him only after they realized that he had been filming the incident, upon which he fled for refuge in his vehicle.

The entire event reeks of abuse and coverup. No matter how the MBPD tries to slice and dice it before the public, there really is no justification for firing hundreds of bullets at an unmoving vehicle in the first place, especially one with a man that appears not to even have been armed. Ironically, an MBPD announcement made days after the incident that a gun had been found “somewhere” in Herisse’s vehicle upon processing — which was an attempt at justifying the officers’ actions — does not vindicate them at all. What it actually shows is that Herisse could not have been firing that weapon when police gunned him down, otherwise it would have been right there with his body and not hidden somewhere else in the car.

Further, there is absolutely no justification for officers pointing guns at and arresting innocent bystanders who were merely exercising their rightful freedom to film public events — and no amount of denial or excuse-making on behalf of the MBPD can change this fact. Narces’ video, which is the smoking gun in this case, exposes the grim reality of this encroaching American police state, and how it is quickly devolving into a deadly display of brute force all across the country. Officers of the state apparently now have no qualms about openly gunning people down, threatening to gun down witnesses, and later trying to cover up or justify their abusive actions.

Sources for this story include:…


Despite Climategate, Romney Still Believes in Manmade Global Warming

| Print |  E-mail
Written by Bruce Walker  –   New American
Thursday, 09 June 2011 10:24

Conservatives have some reason to question a Mitt Romney presidential run. Although the former Massachusetts Governor possesses admirable traits — he is a family man who has stuck by his wife through sickness; he salvaged the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics from corrupt mismanagement; and he made his career in the private sector, rather than as a politician — there are plenty of troubling things as well.

His state effort at health care in Massachusetts has been a disaster. Taxes in that state remain high, and although Romney never had a Republican legislature to help him, he did not stop the state from keeping the nickname “Taxachusetts,” especially labeled that by those fleeing to New Hampshire.In 1994 Romney ran a very tough race against Senator Ted Kennedy, coming close to unseating him. He passed, however, on using his gubernatorial popularity to challenge John Kerry or take another stab at the late Senator Kennedy (even though Scott Brown proved that an energetic, articulate (though far-from-conservative) Republican could win in that strongly Democratic state).

What Romney said recently at a New Hampshire town meeting, however, will cause anyone who opposes rampant statism — including statists’ adherence to the debunked idea of “manmade global warming” and the junk science which supports it — to have strong reservations about supporting his run for the Republican nomination.  Part of the caution is because of his apparent genuflection to political correctness and the other part is simply because of his muddy thinking.

Last week Romney declared:

I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world is getting warmer. I believe humans contribute to that. … I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past. But I believe that we contribute to that.

And so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming that you’re seeing. Now how do we go about doing that? … One of the opportunities, I think, is that people who are really focused on climate change and global warming have the same interests as the people who are really focused, as I am, on getting ourselves off of our dependence on foreign oil. … One way is to use more natural gas in the production of electricity — to use more natural gas in the propulsion of our vehicles. Natural gas is far less CO2-emitting, and it’s also domestic.

It is unclear if Romney is aware of the widespread academic corruption surrounding the claim of manmade global warming, or if he has taken that into account and still believes we are making the planet warmer. It is also unclear why he believes global warming is bad, if indeed there is global warming, especially when he accepts that our planet’s climate has been changing for a long time — with or without man’s help.

It is, in fact, the very lack of clarity which makes Romney’s comments troubling. The fraud and oppression those within the scientific community used in order to reach the politically-correct result of “global warming” is not a new story. The hypocrisy of global warming nabobs such as Al Gore is also well documented. This sort of reckless indifference to truth by Romney may well turn off voters in 2012.

Those who oppose the federal government overreaching its bounds know that the real calamities to our environment have been caused by not building nuclear power plants (facilities that are currently providing much of France’s entire electrical supply), not drilling for oil in Alaska (ostensibly to protect a tiny number of Artic wildlife which may not be in endangered at all), shutting down offshore drilling (thus taking good jobs away from hard-working Americans), and raising so many regulations on coal mining that this abundant resource is not being mined as it should be.

Romney seems to have slipped into the chic and comfortable “science” which, among other things, rejects Intelligent Design because ID maintains that it is not the chaotic and random mutations of microscopic life that produced the sublime beauty of the human body, but rather the unseen hand of the Creator. Science, that creature of medieval Christians in universities, has been twisted to become the handmaiden of modern statist ideology. Mitt Romney seems not to understand that important truth.

One Comment leave one →
  1. March 10, 2012 12:19 pm

    There are 2 forms of companies, the ones that work to charge countless those who work to charge less. We are the second.
    If all the economists were laid end to absolve, they’d never reach a conclusion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: