President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.
In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president's budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.
"An additional $1.2 trillion in debt dumped on [GDP] to our children makes a huge difference," said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "That represents an additional debt of $10,000 per household above and beyond the federal debt they are already carrying."
The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO's deficit estimates.
That figure would equal 90 percent of the estimated gross domestic product in 2020, up from 40 percent at the end of fiscal 2008. By comparison, America's debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 109 percent at the end of World War II, while the ratio for economically troubled Greece hit 115 percent last year.
"That level of debt is extremely problematic, particularly given the upward debt path beyond the 10-year budget window," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
More from the Washington Times
[Editor's note: Think of it this way-- what if your credit card bills are 90% of your income? ]
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
No surprise with the Democrats (Children) in charge
ReplyDeleteWhy was this held until after they rammed Obamacare thru? -- yes, that's a dumb question.
ReplyDeleteTHANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU to all the Democrats / Liberals, Unions, Teachers Unions, Pharmacutical Companies that keep their price fixing.
ReplyDeleteMore crap from the fear mongers. Get a grip. Back to reality.
ReplyDelete10:42
ReplyDeleteFear mongers?
You lefties can't even debate how wreckless and incompetent your dumb a$$ President is can you?
10:42 If the prospect of every house hold owing $170,000 is what you call fear mongering. You sir are an idiot.
ReplyDeleteYour political party (Dems) is a bunch of idiots BTW.
19 years ago, a wise man, Larry Burkett, in his book The Coming Economic Earthquake wrote:
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, there seems to be no thought of ever trying to repay the debt. In truth, our government cannot even pay the interest on its debt, unless it does so through additional borrowing. (p. 62)
So why hasn't our economy collapsed? Because the American people still have confidence in "the system." The heart of the system depends on borrowing to fund the budget deficits each year. The interest on a $3 trillion debt amounts to $240 billion annually, or about 40 percent of all personal income taxes paid. . . .
So how do we break out of this debt spiral? We don't. Unfortunately we have no choice but to continue with more of the same. It's as one of my economics professors liked to say: "He who rides on the back of a tiger cannot dismount."
The interest that most Americans are paying on their own debts should have transferred most of their wealth to the bankers and other lenders by now. The fact that a lot of it has been transferred can be seen in the large bank buildings in every city. But Uncle Sam, in the mode of Robin Hood, has been taking some of the earnings from the rich and giving it back to the poor by way of transfer payments. The transfer payments are not enough to keep them from being poor, but the payments are enough to allow them to continue participating in the economy. Slowly but surely, however, the middle class is being eliminated. The "poor" get federal subsidies for education, housing, health care, even food. The wealthy have enough to provide these benefits for themselves. The middle class borrow against the little equity they have remaining to pay for what they need.
We have another "Catch 22" in the transfer of wealth out of our country. As the national debt continues to grow, our dependence on foreign loans continue to mount. Eventually the interest leaving the country will exceed the government's tax revenues. Then a "solution" must be found.
A short-range solution will be more taxes. One recurring suggestion is to tax the "wealthy" more. The difficulty is that if all the income above $100,000 a year were taken from the wealthy, it would operate our government for only ten days. Also, stripping the wealthy of all their surpluses is a little like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. The poor don't invest for the future. They need all they have just to live.
The second part of this Catch 22 is the danger of foreign investors not lending us the money we need. If they stop lending, then we must print the money (monetize the debt). When we begin this process, hyperinflation is certain to follow. So what do we do? It's a little like a cowboy in the old west riding his horse to death trying to avoid the Indians chasing him. He knows if he keeps on riding his horse will eventually collapse and he will be killed. But if he stops he will also die. So he rides on, hoping for a miracle. (pp. 90-91)
===========
Again, it was back in 1991 when he wrote that. We are even worse off today than that was written (especially the paragraph above that begins with "A short-range solution"). He died in 2003, but his predictions are coming true in today's headlines.
I don't understand you all. If Bush hadn't spent TRILLIONS on the war in Iraq the price of fixing our health care system wouldn't be so huge, but the mistake that you all made has made it seem worse. Blame your own voting skills. (and yes it takes skill to go so low as to vote Bush in two times).
ReplyDelete1:31
ReplyDeleteVoting Bush in twice was not nearly as bad as voting Obama in once. Remember he told you people that he sought out Marxist professors and radicals in college. He associated with people like America haters like J. Wright and Bill Ayers. He has appointed people to high positions like self avowed communist Van Jones. So what kind of skills did it take for you morons to elect this man?
1:31
ReplyDeleteGo back to math class. Bush didn't spend "trillions" on the war in Iraq.
Obama has spent 4 times more money in 1 year than Bush did in 8.
But I guess you leftie idiots can't reason. All you do is think with pure emotion.
HEP DA PO AN CHILDENS! HEP DA PO AN CHILDENS!
4:05 very funny
ReplyDelete1:31pm you can blame us for Bush the first time, but only blame yourselves for putting up a loser like John Kerry to go against him the second time-doh!!!
This is all part of the master plan to bring America down. It is orchestrated by communists like George Soros and hussien is the puppet selected to finish the job.
ReplyDelete