President Obama‘s budget, released Monday, was conceived as a blueprint for future spending, but it also paints the bleakest picture yet of the current fiscal year, which is on track for a record federal deficit and will see the government’s overall debt surpass the size of the total U.S. economy.

Mr. Obama‘s budget projects that 2011 will see the biggest one-year debt jump in history, or nearly $2 trillion, to reach $15.476 trillion by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. That would be 102.6 percent of GDP — the first time since World War II that dubious figure has been reached.

And the budget projects the government will run a deficit of $1.645 trillion this year, topping 2009’s previous record by more than $230 billion. By contrast, 2007’s deficit was just $160 billion altogether.

Still, amid the other staggering numbers in the budget Mr. Obama sent to Congress on Monday, the debt stands out because Congress will need to vote to raise the debt limit later this year, and because the numbers are so large.

In one often-cited study, economists Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff have argued that when a nation’s gross debt passes 90 percent it hinders overall economic growth. The government measures debt several ways. Debt held by the public includes the money borrowed from Social Security’s trust fund.

Actual debt held by the public will reach 72 percent of GDP in 2011 and will climb as the Social Security trust fund’s finances continue to deteriorate.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/14/debt-now-equals-total-us-economy/

This is all true. It is the price we are going to have to pay for the insanity of extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. This, at a time when America's taxes as a % of GDP is the lowest since Harry Truman. This is the same reason that Greece is in crisis. Greece's favorite national Pastime is income tax evasion. Like American, Greece has a huge problem with the flight of capital made possible by NAFTA.

Balderdash...

Taxes are higher now than at any time in the past... We just don't see it.

Taxes are now collected at all levels of society... Cities raise their taxes, counties pile more levi's upon that, states have been slowly handed more and more of the tax burden of the Fed (by regulations) and the fed attaches fees and taxes to every bill and regulation...

One simply needs to start added all these taxes up to see the truth...

Just because the FED appears to have reduced taxes by this misdirection does not mean TAXES are actually reduced.

Nay rather are they simply taken somewhere else.

I have said it before... Our degreed economists are breaking all the rules of a large stable economy.

Correct.
That's what I referred to somewhere else when I talked about the state and local jurisdictions having to make up for the loss of Federal reenues caused by extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. It's what also puts the lie to the assertion that "47% don't pay taxes."

This post is misleading. We extended tax cuts for everyone.

Well, I guess ya gotta find something wrong with what I say. OK

I didnt say it was wrong I said it was misleading. It is true that the rich got their tax cuts extended I am just saying everyone did. 100% of people did and yes the rich are part of the 100%. What you also failed to mention was how even after the Bush tax cuts the highest income tax bracket is still taxed higher than it was before Clinton raised them.

There was no loss of federal revenues...

Fed counts money that it does not have as a projected revenue... Then bases its calculations of future programs upon that projection... Then cuts the rug out from under the very people that it has 'counted' as providing revenu.

The state an local jurisdictions are not 'making' up of a 'loss' of revenue...

They are being slowly forced to assume a larger and larger 'entitlement' agenda...

federal government counts chickens by the number of eggs in the basket... It should come as no surprise that when the hatching is done there are less chickens that expected.

Ok, That's a plausible opinion.

everyone pays some sort of tax.

the 47% is federal income tax. that is not a lie.

Then why don't people that make that claim include the word "federal"? The word makes all the difference between whether the claim is true or whether it is a lie. Words matter. Politics are all about words. Sloppy rhetoric can destroy a nation. (That's my opinion).

I didn't see anyone in the thread using the 47% stat until you mentioned it.

Regardless, it's something that has to be addressed. I support tax increases as long as an equal amount is cut in spending.

Not to mention a 5 year, 5% Value Added Tax..

Now, that's an interesting concept, One I haven't logiced out yet. My intuition is that it would be a horrible idea. It would suppress what little manufacturing sector America has left. I still need to think this idea through.

What do we want to encourage and what do we want to discourage? I want to discourage the fat-cats from taking their money home with them. I want to encourage them to plow it back into their businesses. High marginal income taxes accomplish this.

I just watched Obama's news conference on the new budget. He did the worst job of explaining himself yet.

1.7 trillion dollars? The new word for spending is "investment".

You would think if anyone in Washington understood the term "bankruptcy" well enough to bail out GM, banks, and insurance companies, they would have a clue.

Even the liberal press asked unanswerable questions about sustainability.

We need for you to understand that a whole lot of us liberals see Obama gradually turning into a Rebublican over time. Many of us are looking for an alternative to voting for him in 2012.

You should maybe read the last year or so of Mingle liberal comments before using the word "we". I wouldn't use the ignorant term "you people" since you don't know who you represent. You are a newbie.

Sadly, Obama has not turned into anything but what he always was; a liberal politician who will say whatever it takes to get elected.

You will vote for Obama over any Republican candidate. You are just ashamed of his politics currently. Obama is moving in the direction he thinks will get him re-elected knowing this fact. Clinton taught him this fact.

You need to understand his grandstanding is for independents, not liberals (he will get their votes anyway) and not for Republicans
(he won't get their votes anyway).

His current maneuvers are to force the Republicans to breach the "got to cut medicare/Medicaid" barrier first so he can use it against them in the next election while "reluctantly" agreeing to cuts "forced on him" by the "unreasonable" Republicans who are trying to keep us afloat.

I am only a newbie to you people on this website.

Yes and our point of reference are the liberals "on this site". If you are referring to liberals from another site and don't mention that it is like talking about the president but you don't mean the president of the US but another country and don't mention it.

I don't know what this means.

Ah. You were lacking a comma. l don't know what statement of mine you are referencing, but I am taking a break from Thom Hartmann's message board. You might enjoy getting involved over there. It can be very stimulating.