Obama's 2012 budget proposal to set record deficit

[Alan]

President Barack Obama's 2012 budget proposal projects this year's deficit will reach $1.6 trillion, the largest on record, as December's tax-cut deal begins to reduce federal revenues, a senior Democrat said Sunday.

The new forecast is larger than the $1.48 trillion deficit projected last month by the Congressional Budget Office, Congress's nonpartisan scorekeeper, and up from last year's $1.3 trillion shortfall. The tax deal extended tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration while adding others, such as a temporary cut to the payroll tax.

The prospect of a record deficit is likely to intensify the debate over federal spending and cost controls, which has gripped Washington in recent weeks. Conservative Republicans, many elected with tea-party support, are demanding deep budget cuts for the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704657104576142122744337858.html



President Obama drew fire Sunday from congressional Republicans and independent budget experts for his reluctance to advance a plan that would tackle the nation's biggest budget problems in the spending blueprint he will submit to Congress on Monday.

In the first statement of his budget priorities since Republicans regained control of the House, Obama will avoid politically dangerous recommendations to wipe out cherished tax breaks and to restrain safety-net programs for the elderly, put forward last year by his own bipartisan fiscal commission as a strategy for reining in a soaring national debt.

White House budget director Jacob J. Lew has told advocates of reform that the White House thinks any significant plan offered by the president would simply become a target for partisan attack. Key Democrats, including Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (N.D.), said they accept that rationale. Republicans argued that Obama was abdicating a responsibility to chart a path to solvency.
ad_icon

"The country's biggest challenge, domestically speaking, no doubt about it, is a debt crisis. . . . It looks like the debt is going to continue rising under this budget," House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said on "Fox News Sunday." "Presidents are elected to lead, not to punt. And this president has been punting."

Some who worked on Obama's fiscal panel were also disappointed by his decision not to endorse any of the major elements of their deficit-reduction plan, which calls for raising the Social Security retirement age, charging wealthy seniors more for Medicare and limiting popular tax breaks such as the mortgage interest deduction. The plan has attracted support from key members of both parties and is the focus of an effort in the Senate to develop a bipartisan spending plan.

"I would have preferred to see the administration get out front on addressing the entitlements and the tax reform that we need to reduce long-run deficits," said Alice Rivlin, a commission member who served as budget director in the Clinton White House. "But they clearly made a tactical decision that this is not the best way to get to a positive result."

Erskine Bowles, the Democratic chairman of the fiscal commission, said the White House budget request goes "nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare."




Still, $1.1 trillion in savings would barely dent deficits that congressional budget analysts say could approach $12 trillion through 2021. The deficit is projected to approach $1.5 trillion this year and will remain above $1 trillion in 2012 under Obama's new spending plan, Conrad said. In 2015, when Obama had hoped to get the deficit down to 3 percent of the economy, his new budget plan projects a deficit of 3.2 percent of gross domestic product, Conrad said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/13/AR2011021303375.html

Eish $12 trillion :wtf:

[The_Librarian]

$12 trillion :wtf: :sick:

[Mila]

$12 trillion :wtf: :sick:

Do they have that kind of money!
As I was watching our budget speach I was thinking... Who the hell is printing the money for them!!??

[Alan]

$12 000 000 000 000

[Ancalagon]

Its sad that Obama has had to screw the country (extending the Bush tax cuts) for purely political reasons.

[grayston]

I'll just sit here and watch the fight between those who will blame the wars and tax cuts and those who will blame healthcare and immigrants.

[Alan]

it's sad he is addicted to spending. He managed to kick his smoking habit though :erm:

[The_Librarian]

Americans! Do as your Egyptian brothers did, and revolt! :D

[Mila]

Americans! Do as your Egyptian brothers did, and revolt! :D

We must first hold a Youth festival again...

[Alan]

Americans! Do as your Egyptian brothers did, and revolt! :D

They have. It's called the Tea Party campaign. They also gave the ruling party in congress their largest defeat in over a hundred years. Unfortunately removing the president wasn't an option.

[R13...]

So they should revolt to demand America spend less...lose more jobs...cut military spending...be accused of aiding terrorists...be accused of being a terrorist himself...lose more jobs? I wouldn't want to be in his shoes right now though.

[manesan]

They have. It's called the Tea Party campaign. They also gave the ruling party in congress their largest defeat in over a hundred years. Unfortunately removing the president wasn't an option.

Werent they the ones who pushed for extending the GWB extended tax breaks for the rich?

[scotty777]

Hmmm, America is either going to collapse in on it self, leaving the rest of the world effed, or there's going to be an epic war coming, something to reset the debt books. I don't think the later is an option though...

However, The problem is, car America have a war against the world? I heard there's a theory that power continues to move more and more west, guess who's next on the list if you move west of America!?

Lets just hope that in the event of a nuclear war, everyone leaves the Southern hemisphere along, because that way we won't get any nuclear fallout :D.

[grayston]

However, The problem is, car America have a war against the world? I heard there's a theory that power continues to move more and more west, guess who's next on the list if you move west of America!?

Captain Trips.


OoooEEEoooo...

[JStrike]

Werent they the ones who pushed for extending the GWB extended tax breaks for the rich?

Nope

[Ancalagon]

However, The problem is, car America have a war against the world? I heard there's a theory that power continues to move more and more west, guess who's next on the list if you move west of America!?

You get to Russia, and then China, and then mainland Europe, and then England, and then back to America again. So, by your theory, America is more powerful than America.

[VioAdmin]

How about the SA deficit, how are WE doing? LMAO...

[Alan]

Yet another sign that centrist Democrats are an endangered species: The Democratic Leadership Council, a movement of moderate Dems that propelled Bill Clinton into the White House, just went out of business.

his, following the surprise announcement that Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), one of the House Democrats’ most respected security hawks, is resigning from Congress to accept an academic post.

Which in turn followed the decisions of moderate Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Jim Webb (Va.) not to seek re-election in 2012. And the loss of more than half the Blue Dog Democratic House seats in last fall’s midterm elections

The DLC’s departure, though, truly marks the end of an era.

The group was founded in the wake of Ronald Reagan’s 1984 landslide re-election win over Walter Mondale in the hope of halting what organizers saw as a relentless Democratic slide to the left.

The DLC attracted people like Sens. Al Gore and Sam Nunn — and Clinton, then the young governor of Arkansas, who became the group’s leading public face.

Its aim, he later wrote, was to advance “a dynamic but centrist progressive movement of new ideas rooted in traditional American values” — in sharp contrast to the hard-left forces that had largely captured the party, beginning with the 1972 McGovern campaign.

But since Clinton left office, the rise of the special interests — unions, etc. — and the usual suspects from the anti-war crowd as the Democratic mainstream has left no room for the party’s moderates.

And hard-left Democratic groups were quick to cheer the news.

Ironically, the DLC’s demise comes as President Obama, fresh off his midterm “shellacking,” has tacked to the center — rhetorically, anyway — as he recognizes the need to attract independents and so-called Reagan Democrats to his own re-election bid.

A narrowly focused, ideologically driven Democratic Party may mean good news for Republicans.

But there’s no denying that, in the long run, political debate in the US will not prosper from this development.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/center_left_behind_3jewsAJ5W0hu6jSAAlvCUP#ixzz1Dva YY9PV

So how do they expect to win back independents and moderate democrats in 2012 :erm:

[phenom]

Yipp, what we needed to do was to 'create' jobs, what do we have now, people who are hiring for no reason, what does this translate into, lower productivity and efficiency and thus less profit to counter the dept and less money for research and infestructure in the longer run just as well. All that 'creating' jobs does is retard the economy.

What the US needs to do is to change international policy, stop trying to help other nations who don't want help, and seek to build your own nation first, and don't tink that you've got everything right and are the epitome of what is just and most efficient, at the same time don't simply think that just any other answer would be equal as with multiculturalism either.

Exact same goes to SA

[phenom]

How about the SA deficit, how are WE doing? LMAO...Well we just cut Cuba off of $1bn of dept they owed us... seems we're doing pretty well, not sure if the other 25% jobless and the fact that 90% of our economy is working for under R5000 a month, only 1.6% earns R30k a month (i'd say that would be what is the very utmost basic wage for 1 single childless person alone), to add we have had 1 to 1.6 million skilled or highly skilled people leave our nation in the past 10 years alone, just try to find a doctor/dentist with a UCT cert.

[Fazda]

Werent they the ones who pushed for extending the GWB extended tax breaks for the rich?

Alan won't answer that as it is too close to the truth. The Republicans have Obama over a barrel, and they are going to milk this for all they are worth. Alan starting off a thread like this would earn him any honorary badge in the Glen Beck fanboi club :rolleyes:

[Alan]

so starts the ad hominems from the peanut gallery......

[Fazda]

so starts the ad hominems from the peanut gallery......

As I predicted...you wouldn't answer the question...

[Garyvdh]

Do they have that kind of money!
As I was watching our budget speach I was thinking... Who the hell is printing the money for them!!??

No, there is only about $820 Billion in actual circulating currency. When they say that the Federal Reserve creates more money, it does not mean they actually print that money. It is only created "on the books". It is basically just virtual money. That's right. There is only less than 7% actual real dollars in existence. And of that $820 Billion, only a certain portion of it is actually backed by Gold. The rest is all "goodwill, faith, hope, trust and lotsa luck" :D

[Garyvdh]

Its sad that Obama has had to screw the country (extending the Bush tax cuts) for purely political reasons.


.be accused of being a terrorist himself...lose more jobs? I wouldn't want to be in his shoes right now though.

Maybe he really is a Muslim and he is trying to destroy the US economy??? :eek:

[The_Assimilator]

America needs to start levying extra taxes on fat people. Would wipe out the deficit in half a decade and lead to a healthier society that needs less medical care.

[Garyvdh]

so starts the ad hominems from the peanut gallery......

Hey, he knows he can't actually use facts to debate in this thread... so he falls back on his next best weapon... attack the poster.

[Alan]

Maybe he really is a foreign Muslim and he is trying to destroy the US economy??? :eek:

fixed

[phenom]

Why should money be backed by a useless metal anyway. Money is a ticket, a ticket that holds it's value in 'will', money is the currency of 'will', or at least it should be, nothing more. Will has nothing to do with geology.

[phenom]

I think that Obama is simply the average highly educated guy, he is no hedge fund manager nor has he even run any business on his own, this is why i said that it would have been better if he rather only became president at a much more ripe age. His logic is not too bad, but his exploration and through development thereof pretty much is either in its infancy right now or doesn't even exist.

Mugabe holds 14 degrees too, whowever what did that make of him. Bill gates dropped out of college, Richard Brandson is learning disabled, and Gorge Soros is not that well educated either, a good third of the forbs 400 are either colledge or highschool dropouts. ONe thing concurrent amongst the successful is that they all hae a thoroughly worked out strategy and a purpose orientated philosophy. Does not exist with obama, Obama barely sold lemonade

Hope tht people in this nation like Tokyo could join the DA too.

[Alan]

America needs to start levying extra taxes on fat people. Would wipe out the deficit in half a decade and lead to a healthier society that needs less medical care.

or simply refuse to pay for their health care. Health care is like any right. It comes with responsibility and liable to be lost if you're irresponsible and abuse yourself.

[phenom]

America needs to start levying extra taxes on fat people. Would wipe out the deficit in half a decade and lead to a healthier society that needs less medical care.
Said this before too, tax the fatty red meats and mayo just like you tax cigarettes and alcohol, theres no telling how much mor dangerous that jar of Mayo would be than say a carton of cigarettes. And stop curtailing bio-ethonol production because it will raise food prices, food prices rise is natural, if the food prices rise it is because the economy demands that they do so that more money is needed for innovation in the food market, or that other sectors aren't working so now we've got to get people to be more efficient on the things that they are using too much of. and that people eat too much. the economy is complex, howevfer the free market, as with the market economy and same with the ecosystem in mother nature, is that the free market is usually the best one to decide as to who needs to pay what for how much, you can't defeat gravity just by pretending it doesn't exist. in a real free market we would leave these people to die, and as such people will realise that they might need to be a tad bit more responsible next time, however, we could just as much offer them the option to free basic healthcare if they pay higher taxes on certain foods. Discovery health also finds this policy to be successful, government should follow where businesses are successful

[phenom]

Now who and why did somebody vote this thread down?

[Cloudster]

No, there is only about $820 Billion in actual circulating currency. When they say that the Federal Reserve creates more money, it does not mean they actually print that money. It is only created "on the books". It is basically just virtual money. That's right. There is only less than 7% actual real dollars in existence. And of that $820 Billion, only a certain portion of it is actually backed by Gold. The rest is all "goodwill, faith, hope, trust and lotsa luck" :D

True, when I first learnt of this concept I was completely shocked to be honest. It has always seemed to me that this was a way of "crooking the books" so to speak

[Cloudster]

Said this before too, tax the fatty red meats and mayo just like you tax cigarettes and alcohol, theres no telling how much mor dangerous that jar of Mayo would be than say a carton of cigarettes. And stop curtailing bio-ethonol production because it will raise food prices, food prices rise is natural, if the food prices rise it is because the economy demands that they do so that more money is needed for innovation in the food market, or that other sectors aren't working so now we've got to get people to be more efficient on the things that they are using too much of. and that people eat too much. the economy is complex, howevfer the free market, as with the market economy and same with the ecosystem in mother nature, is that the free market is usually the best one to decide as to who needs to pay what for how much, you can't defeat gravity just by pretending it doesn't exist. in a real free market we would leave these people to die, and as such people will realise that they might need to be a tad bit more responsible next time, however, we could just as much offer them the option to free basic healthcare if they pay higher taxes on certain foods. Discovery health also finds this policy to be successful, government should follow where businesses are successful

The idea of "sin tax" is as stupid as the recent carbon emission tax we need to pay on new cars.

Every time I see a totally unroadworthy vehicle polluting the crap out of everyone behind it ... I laugh inside, just cause I think to myself "I've paid more carbon emission tax on my new, relatively environmentally friendly car than what that guy did"...

[phenom]

The idea of "sin tax" is as stupid as the recent carbon emission tax we need to pay on new cars.

Every time I see a totally unroadworthy vehicle polluting the crap out of everyone behind it ... I laugh inside, just cause I think to myself "I've paid more carbon emission tax on my new, relatively environmentally friendly car than what that guy did"...Well then no free meds. why should I pay for somebody elses bad eating habits?

[WilD_CaT]

Its funny the lack of any real understanding in economics, hence the insults from both sides.

The reason why mainstream economists back deficit spending is that they consentrate on a thing called aggregate demand. If people stop spending, then the flow of money and hence the economsy stops. No spending = no income, if you aren't getting paid, you'll stop working.

So when people tighten their belts, they stop spending. The government then believes it has to step in to mitigate this and spend themselves.

So whilst tax cuts do not "decrease" the deficit mathematically, it means more money in the hands of individuals. When individuals have more money they tend to spend it in 2 ways. Either they spend it now on present consumption (So called consumer goods), or they save and invest it (Spending increases on capital goods) which in return will be spent on consumer goods sometime in the future. So in fact tax cuts have the same effect as deficits on demand.

Both increase demand. One from consumers and individuals, and one artificially from the state. So if you are in favour of deficit spending, one presumes it would be because you believe (Mistakenly imho) in the aggregate demand theory. In which case you would also favour tax cuts as they help increase demand from the individual side of the equation. C(onsumer goods) + Inv(estment) + G(overnment spending) + E(xports) - i(mports) = GDP is the equation.

So Keynesians (Most mainstream economists) believe that an increase in government spending increases GDP. Same with tax cuts as it means more of "C" and "Inv". However Government spending either comes from taxes (Reducing "C" and "Inv") or from printing money, which results in inflation, thus reducing "C" and "Inv" in real terms (Or inflation adjusted terms).

Which is why, ultimately I think Keynesian economics is inherently flawed.

Besides, what got us into this mess is credit expansion which led to the housing bubble. Remember, without the money to buy houses, people simply wouldn'y have been able to buy houses.

So if you believe as I do, that increases in credit (Reducing interest rates and relaxed lending criteria) got us into this mess, then surely the solution wouldn't be to drink from the hair of the dog, I.E. more credit expansion.

That just seems logical to me.

But again, Bush did the same, so I don't see anything different from actual Republican policy to Democratic policy. You can't just talk the talk about being "conservative" and not walk the walk.

But since good'ol Dr No (Whom, for some reason is disliked by people on this forum from both sides) has anything to say about it as the new head of the Monetary Policy committee or whatever is called, we could be in for some changes on economic policy in the long run. Lets hope.

[Zyzzyva]

A book "The Complete Idiots Guide to Economics" written in 2003 cites the U.S. Government budget as reporting that entitlements make up approximately 65 percent of our budget, distributed as follows:

Social Security: 23%
Medicare: 12%
Medicaid: 7%
Other Means-tested entitlements: 6%
Mandatory payments (pensions, etc.): 6%
Net interest on debt: 11%
.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (2010), discretionary spending makes up about 20 percent of the budget. Social Security takes up about 21 percent and healthcare about 27 percent.

[Alan]

It's up to the states to limit the damage...


The Democratic/government-union days of rage in Madison, Wisconsin, are a disgrace. Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan calls it Cairo coming to Madison. But the protesters in Egypt were pro-democracy. The government-union protesters in Madison are anti-democracy; they are trying to prevent a vote in the legislature. In fact, Democratic legislators themselves are fleeing the state so as not to vote on Gov. Scott Walker's budget cuts.

That's not democracy.

The teachers' union is going on strike in Milwaukee and elsewhere. They ought to be fired. Think Ronald Reagan PATCO in 1981. Think Calvin Coolidge police strike in 1919.

The teachers' union on strike? Wisconsin parents should go on strike against the teachers' union. A friend e-mailed me to say that the graduation rate in Milwaukee public schools is 46 percent. The graduation rate for African-Americans in Milwaukee public schools is 34 percent. Shouldn't somebody be protesting that?

Governor Walker is facing a $3.6 billion budget deficit, and he wants state workers to pay one-half of their pension costs and 12.6 percent of their health benefits. Currently, most state employees pay nothing for their pensions and virtually nothing for their health insurance. That's an outrage.

Nationwide, state and local government unions have a 45 percent total-compensation advantage over their private-sector counterpart. With high-pay compensation and virtually no benefits co-pay, the politically arrogant unions are bankrupting America -- which by some estimates is suffering from $3 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Exempting police, fire, and state troopers, Governor Walker would end collective bargaining over pensions and benefits for the rest. Collective bargaining for wages would still be permitted, but there would be no wage hikes above the CPI. Unions could still represent workers, but they could not force employees to pay dues. In exchange for this, Walker promises no furloughs for layoffs.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is also pushing a bill to limit the collective-bargaining rights of teachers for wages and wage-related benefits. Similar proposals are being discussed in Idaho and Tennessee. In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich wants to restrict union rights across-the-board for all state and local government workers. More generally, both Democratic and Republican governors across the country are taking on the extravagant pay of government unions.

Why? Because taxpayers won't stand for it anymore.

In an interesting twist on this story, even private unions are revolting against government unions. Private unions pay taxes, too. And they don't have near the total compensation of the public unions. It's no wonder they're fed up.

So, having lost badly in the last election, the government-union Democrats in Wisconsin have taken to the streets. This is a European-style revolt, like those seen in Greece, France, and elsewhere. So it becomes greater than just a fiscal issue. It is becoming a law-and-order issue.

President Obama, who keeps telling us he's a budget cutter, has taken the side of the public unions. John Boehner correctly rapped Obama's knuckles for this. If the state of Wisconsin voters elected a Chris Christie-type governor with a Republican legislature, then it is a local states' rights issue.

But does President Obama even know that the scope of collective bargaining for federal employees is sharply limited? According to the Manhattan Institute, federal workers are forbidden to collectively bargain for wages or benefits. Instead, pay increases are determined annually through legislation.

Meanwhile, Gov. Scott Walker said it would be "wise" for President Obama to keep his attentions on Washington, not Wisconsin. "We're focused on balancing our budget," he said in a television interview. "It would be wise for the president and others in Washington to be focused on balancing their budget, which they're a long ways from doing."

Amen.

Obama should stay out. And Governor Walker should stand tall and stick to his principles. A nationwide taxpayer revolt against public unions can save the country.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/19/madness_in_madison_108963.html

[WilD_CaT]

...not too sure what to make of everything there.

1. I'm in favour of less power at the federal level and more power at the states as a general principle (Do not centralise power).
2. It is quite well understood that people in state positions get cushy jobs, the good pay and good benefits, which is of course funded through taxes. That simple fact should make everyone mad.
3. I disagree you need "taxpayers" to revolt against unions. The only real way unions can get any power over the employee/employer relationship is if the legislation gives them power. I mean, in the absence of this, employers would just fire their employees, if you don't like it, go somewhere else. This in turn would lead to people getting perhaps a little less pay, and perhaps not as good working condiditions, but greater productivity and cheaper labour = increases in supply and thus decreases in real prices for everyone. Furthermore greater labour flexability will mean those employers who are willing to listen to their employees and make better offers will easily get the best people and those who don't will get the worst people. So what you find is the reward/incentive system of the market will start working. Those employer's who offer the best, get the best. Those employees who work the hardest, will get the best jobs.

[phenom]

Obama: Five-year freeze on NASA budget
February 14th, 2011 in Space & Earth / Space Exploration
President Barack Obama proposed reining in expenses at NASA on his 2012 budget blueprint


US President Barack Obama unveils his 2012 budget Monday, proposing a raft of spending cuts and tax hikes aimed at curbing a record budget deficit. Obama on Monday proposed reining in expenses at NASA, sending his 2012 budget blueprint to Congress calling for a five-year freeze on new spending at the US space agency.

President Barack Obama on Monday proposed reining in expenses at NASA, sending a 2012 budget blueprint to Congress that calls for a five-year freeze on spending levels at the US space agency.

Obama would restrict NASA's budget to last year's levels, $18.7 billion annually through fiscal 2016. The figure represents a 1.6-percent decrease from the spending total the agency had sought for fiscal 2011, which ends in September.

"This budget requires us to live within our means so we can invest in our future," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden told a news conference.

Bolden sought to put a brave face on the budget limitations, saying the administration's proposal "maintains our commitment to human spaceflight" and research.

Experts said it reflected Washington's new fiscal reality, framed by voter frustration with excessive government spending.

"There is not a lot of money available," said John Logsdon, a former director of the Space Policy Institute in Washington.

"It should not compromise what NASA wants to do but it certainly would slow it down," said Logsdon, an independent consultant to the Obama administration.

The belt-tightening comes just as the United States winds down its space shuttle program, and struggles to move forward on a replacement for the vaunted vessels that have carried hundreds of astronauts into space.

Nearly half of Obama's proposed 2012 NASA budget -- and for the next five years -- is dedicated to space operations and exploration systems, including $2.9 billion for the development of a heavy launcher and a space capsule intended for missions beyond low Earth orbit.

Seven billion dollars have been earmarked for work aimed at making the new heavy launcher operational by 2016. It will be crucial for sending astronauts beyond low Earth orbit to an asteroid and to Mars.

NASA has not yet determined the architecture of the system nor when it will be operational.

Obama's budget would continue to push for commercial partnerships to develop reliable access to the space station and lessen the reliance on Russia, whose Soyuz spacecraft will be carrying US astronauts to the ISS until a shuttle successor is developed.

The draft budget proposes 850 million dollars in 2012 as seed money to help companies like SpaceX -- which has already successfully launched a prototype space capsule into orbit.

A final US budget for fiscal 2011 has not been approved because Democrats and Republicans failed to agree on spending levels in the runup to last November's mid-term election. At that time, Obama and fellow Democrats decided to maintain 2010 levels.

But Republicans won control of the House of Representatives and they are vowing massive spending cuts for the remainder of fiscal 2011 and beyond.

"We don't know what NASA will get in 2011," one administration official said.

Another administration official close to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, speaking anonymously, warned that deeper cuts could put the space programs at risk.

"If the Republicans get their way all of this is in jeopardy," the official said.

(c) 2011 AFP
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-obama-five-year-nasa.html

If not enough

[phenom]

from0% in clinton, to 60% dept of GDP in Bush years, to now over 100% dept as a percentage of GDP. what went wrong?

[Zyzzyva]

from0% in clinton, to 60% dept of GDP in Bush years, to now over 100% dept as a percentage of GDP. what went wrong?

Debt under Clinton hovered around 65% of GDP and went up to 83% by the time Bush left. Obama's problem is he is only 2 years into his term, which means he needs to put the breaks on and quickly. His reluctance to do so is certainly concerning.

[alf101]

.

http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/hilarious-random-photos-33.jpg?w=500&h=620

[Alan]

http://www.cagle.com/working/110215/allie.jpg