CBO says new figures show debt will be 90% of GDP by 2020

• Writerbuckeye

  

  Bankruptcy is right around the corner, folks. We can't sustain these types of policies...and this news was dumped late on a Friday to minimize it to the public and the markets.
  
  Shameful.
  
  Then again, it's par for the course for this administration.
  
  That means our percent of debt is going to rise some 30 percent as a direct result of Obama's policies.
  
  Very shameful...and dangerous.
  
  http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/05/news/economy/cbo_obama_budget/
  

  By 2020, the agency estimates debt held by the public would reach $20.3 trillion, or 90% of GDP. That's up from 53% of GDP in 2009.
  
  The CBO cited two big contributors to the jump in debt.
  
  One is the president's proposal to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the majority of Americans. The other is the proposal to protect middle- and upper-middle-income families from having to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
  
  Together those proposals would cost $3 trillion between 2011 and 2020.

• Footwedge

  Yes indeed. There is no stopping the runaway train. The GDP growth is pretty much dependent on the gobblement growth. In order to keep the masses fed, the printing press will continue to c-notes.
  
  There is no real effort by either party to stop it. Been going on for a very long time. The N.D. might be 90% of GDP in 2020...but probably will be 150% of GDP by 2030.
• IggyPride00

  

  NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- If President Obama's 2011 budget were put into effect as proposed, the U.S. federal government would add an estimated $9.8 trillion to the country's accrued debt over the next decade, according to a preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office.
  
  Of that amount, an estimated $5.6 trillion will be in interest alone.

  We have gotten a huge break that interest rates fell off a cliff, but once they climb again the problem that any politician is going to have regardless of party is that even if BHO didn't add $1 to the debt, we are going to be looking at $400-500 Billion a year of interest accumulation on the $12 trillion of debt we already have.
  
  Interest expense is going to be one of the biggest line items soon, and it is totally dead money as it doesn't do anything productive.
  
  It is the thing that will make balancing the budget hardest ultimately, because it can't be a spending cut, and it will continue to grow. The only way to make it go away is to start running huge surpluses, which is virtually impossible.
  
  It is the big elephant in the room no one wants to talk about, but everytime a liberal sulks about the lack of universal healthcare or a Conservative complains about the need for a major across the board tax cut, I hope they think about the hundreds of billions a year we spend on interest payments that could fund both of those things simultaneously were it not for the fuzzy math both sides use that created the debt mountain precluding us from being able to do so.
• BCSbunk

  Writerbuckeye wrote: Bankruptcy is right around the corner, folks. We can't sustain these types of policies...and this news was dumped late on a Friday to minimize it to the public and the markets.
  
  Shameful.
  
  Then again, it's par for the course for this administration.
  
  That means our percent of debt is going to rise some 30 percent as a direct result of Obama's policies.
  
  Very shameful...and dangerous.
  
  http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/05/news/economy/cbo_obama_budget/
  

  By 2020, the agency estimates debt held by the public would reach $20.3 trillion, or 90% of GDP. That's up from 53% of GDP in 2009.
  
  The CBO cited two big contributors to the jump in debt.
  
  One is the president's proposal to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the majority of Americans. The other is the proposal to protect middle- and upper-middle-income families from having to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
  
  Together those proposals would cost $3 trillion between 2011 and 2020.

  I agree, except for one mistake. "Then again, it's par for the course for this administration"
  
  Yeah Bush did not sign bailouts and spend like its going out of style.
  
  We have been spending out of control for a long time so trying to place blame on this administration is ridiculous.
• Darkon

  

  BCSbunk wrote:

  Writerbuckeye wrote: Bankruptcy is right around the corner, folks. We can't sustain these types of policies...and this news was dumped late on a Friday to minimize it to the public and the markets.
  
  Shameful.
  
  Then again, it's par for the course for this administration.
  
  That means our percent of debt is going to rise some 30 percent as a direct result of Obama's policies.
  
  Very shameful...and dangerous.
  
  http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/05/news/economy/cbo_obama_budget/
  

  By 2020, the agency estimates debt held by the public would reach $20.3 trillion, or 90% of GDP. That's up from 53% of GDP in 2009.
  
  The CBO cited two big contributors to the jump in debt.
  
  One is the president's proposal to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the majority of Americans. The other is the proposal to protect middle- and upper-middle-income families from having to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
  
  Together those proposals would cost $3 trillion between 2011 and 2020.

  I agree, except for one mistake. "Then again, it's par for the course for this administration"
  
  Yeah Bush did not sign bailouts and spend like its going out of style.
  
  We have been spending out of control for a long time so trying to place blame on this administration is ridiculous.

  Someone needs to step up and correct the problem. They are currently in charge and doing nothing but add to it. That is why this administration will bare most of the burden for the debt because of the spending agenda.
• general94

  Agreed, I don't think anybody can defend Bush's record on this issue, as it was deplorable. But Obama is making it so much worse. Quit blaming the previous administration and roll your sleeves up and do the hard work.
• Footwedge

  The only logical approach....a partial repudiation of the national debt..and then a clear cut set of rules of living within our means.
  
  But that won't happen either. What will happen...a natural national bankruptcy will ensue....which will be far worse scenario than a repudiation now.
• Footwedge

  Darkon wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:

  Writerbuckeye wrote: Bankruptcy is right around the corner, folks. We can't sustain these types of policies...and this news was dumped late on a Friday to minimize it to the public and the markets.
  
  Shameful.
  
  Then again, it's par for the course for this administration.
  
  That means our percent of debt is going to rise some 30 percent as a direct result of Obama's policies.
  
  Very shameful...and dangerous.
  
  http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/05/news/economy/cbo_obama_budget/
  

  By 2020, the agency estimates debt held by the public would reach $20.3 trillion, or 90% of GDP. That's up from 53% of GDP in 2009.
  
  The CBO cited two big contributors to the jump in debt.
  
  One is the president's proposal to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the majority of Americans. The other is the proposal to protect middle- and upper-middle-income families from having to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
  
  Together those proposals would cost $3 trillion between 2011 and 2020.

  I agree, except for one mistake. "Then again, it's par for the course for this administration"
  
  Yeah Bush did not sign bailouts and spend like its going out of style.
  
  We have been spending out of control for a long time so trying to place blame on this administration is ridiculous.

  Someone needs to step up and correct the problem. They are currently in charge and doing nothing but add to it. That is why this administration will bare most of the burden for the debt because of the spending agenda.

  Because the private sector is leaving America, the government keeps the masses fed by ithe deficit spending. If the people want solutions, then what needs to be addressed is how to retain private business interests here in the US.
  
  Globalization and the outsourcing of good jobs has ruined the structure of our macro economics.
• tk421

  

  Footwedge wrote: The only logical approach....a partial repudiation of the national debt..and then a clear cut set of rules of living within our means.
  
  But that won't happen either. What will happen...a natural national bankruptcy will ensue....which will be far worse scenario than a repudiation now.

  I agree. We need a constitutional amendment that requires Congress to have the budget X percent lower than the previous year's total revenue. That has absolutely zero chance of happening though. I see this country breaking up into smaller countries/territories after the bankruptcy hits.
• bigmanbt

  tk421 wrote:

  Footwedge wrote: The only logical approach....a partial repudiation of the national debt..and then a clear cut set of rules of living within our means.
  
  But that won't happen either. What will happen...a natural national bankruptcy will ensue....which will be far worse scenario than a repudiation now.

  I agree. We need a constitutional amendment that requires Congress to have the budget X percent lower than the previous year's total revenue. That has absolutely zero chance of happening though. I see this country breaking up into smaller countries/territories after the bankruptcy hits.

  Boy that's a scary thought, one I hadn't thought of yet. Imagine the wars that will be fought over territory over the next hundreds of years if that was to happen. Horrifying thought, which makes me even more of a believer in my libertarian ideals.
• believer

  

  tk421 wrote: I see this country breaking up into smaller countries/territories after the bankruptcy hits.

  I'm not so Draconian about it but a U.S. national bankruptcy could certainly make China the world's lone superpower.
  
  Why is it that the United States has assisted, bailed out, and rebuilt nation after nation and now that we are in financial crisis, everyone except the Communist Chinese are turning a blind eye to assisting us?
  
  And the only reason the Chinese are "investing" in us is because they depend heavily on our consumerism/materialism to drive their industrial machine.
  
  One thing is certain: If the United States has a complete financial meltdown, the whole world will feel the effects for decades.
  
  With the idiocy and corruption that is rampant in the Beltway, frankly a national bankruptcy may be the only "solution" to this mess.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Nobody else is in a position to help.
  
  Almost all of "old" Europe is in dire straights financially, too. Look at what's happening with Greece and expect similar problems in other Western European countries to start cropping up as their entitlement programs go bankrupt.
  
  When (not if) the US is forced to withdraw its military as protection for Europe, you'll see even more problems as those countries will have to amp up military spending they've been able to avoid because the US was providing their protection.
• believer

  

  Writerbuckeye wrote:When (not if) the US is forced to withdraw its military as protection for Europe, you'll see even more problems as those countries will have to amp up military spending they've been able to avoid because the US was providing their protection.

  Can't happen soon enough.
• sleeper

  

  I agree its sad, but nothing will be done until it happens because no politician wants to tell their constituents that they aren't getting any money, or not getting any help to their district.