Obama’s Budget Puts National Debt At 100% Of GDP This Year

And with his budget continuing to add debt at a rate of over $1 trillion/year for the next decade, the debt will grow significantly larger than the national economy for the foreseeable future if we take the course the President has plotted.

President Obama projects that the gross federal debt will top $15 trillion this year, officially equalling the size of the entire U.S. economy, and will jump to nearly than $21 trillion in five years’ time.

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

Mr. Obama‘s budget said 2011 will see the biggest one-year jump in debt in history, or nearly $2 trillion in a single year. And the administration says it will reach $15.476 trillion by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, to reach 102.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) — the first time since World War II that dubious figure has been reached.

In one often-cited study, two economists have argued that when gross debt passes 90 percent it hinders overall economic growth.

The president’s budget said debt as a percentage of GDP will top out at 106 percent in 2013, but only if the economy booms.

“I still don’t see a sense of urgency from the president about the massive federal debt,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee Republican. “His budget calls for too much government borrowing – even though the debt is already at a level that makes it harder to create private-sector jobs.”

“The Stimulus failed. This budget says `Do it again.’ The President has already added more than 3 trillion dollars to the debt as we lost another three million jobs. This budget says let’s add more debt and see if we get a different result,” says Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Obama’s budget is, to put it simply, not one a serious or responsible leader would consider.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

    Hope for change.

  • Jamermorrow

    Wait until interest rates go up on the National Debt. Hyperinflation is on the way. No way the U.S. can pay its debts without destroying the currency.

    • Brenarlo

      And inflating the currency is a form of default.

  • SigFan

    Obama, like an out of control drug addict, will keep spending and spending until it kills him – and us and the country with him. Simply irresponsible, unbelievable and unpardonable.

    Odd that you mention we haven’t spent this much as a percentage of GDP since WWII. I heard someone on the radio the other day comment that the only thing that can pull this country back from economic extinction is a war – a big, messy, nasty one, not the type of wars we’re fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq. This person wasn’t advocating for it of course, just pointing out that if we survived another world war the effect on the economy would be much like it was at the end of WWI and WWII when our economy boomed. Let’s hope we can restore fiscal sanity in DC before it comes to that.

    • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

      I disagree that war would improve the economy. The 30’s and 40’s were a
      unique time. The depression was caused by horrible monetary and government
      practices.

      Get rid of Obama and the Dims and we’re on the way to recovery.

      • SigFan

        I’m not sure I agree with the premise either Whistler, just thought it coincidental that the spending level we are at now hasn’t been seen since WWII. I think what the guy on the radio was saying though was that after the wars we enjoyed a period of prosperity and growth (20’s and 50’s) not that times were particularly good during the wars themselves. Again, not sure I agree but find the concept interesting anyway.

        • Jamermorrow

          This is a liberal lie to get you to think FDR and the New Deal was a benefit to the economy. Look at GDP numbers during that time. They did not rise until 1946. Unemployment ended because every male was put into the military. The soviet union had no unemployment but had a terrible economy. War can end unemployment but is harmful to the economy.

          • SigFan

            Read my other comments. It was the post-war years in which we saw the economy come back, not during or before. The only thing I believe FDR did was hasten us down the path to socialism.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=616098424 Tamara Huey Weathers

            We experienced a thriving economy in the 20’s due to practices put in place by Harding and Coolidge. This included such things as cutting taxes and cutting government bureaucracies, enforcing immigration restrictions… http://www.calvin-coolidge.org/html/the_harding_coolidge_prosperit.html

      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        War often does improve the economy. The next big one will not. It will be a beans and bones economy.

        • Brenarlo

          No, war does not improve the economy. If it did, then why don’t we just permanently build all sorts of weapons and then just blow them up in the desert?

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Sorry, I make no claims to being economically literate, but something tells me—just a little intuition—that this sort of stimulus is not quite the same, but I shall research it.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Brief, lapidary bit on the economics of war: http://www.joshuagoldstein.com/jgeconhi.htm
            In general war is economically bad, but not always in every way—depends. It used to work out better when you could freely loot, rape women, and annex land.

    • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

      There is no question in my mind that war is coming within 2 years, maybe much less—big, nasty, and deadly. As they say, many of the survivors will envy the dead.

      • SigFan

        I hear you. As I said to Whistler, I don’t know that I buy into the idea that a war (or the aftermath of a war) would be good for the economy, but I believe we are going to find out whether we want to or not.

        • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

          It is easy to see that massively destructive and destabilizing wars like WWs I & II would be bad for the economy, but the drawn out, tactical wars—the “guns & butter” wars, if you will, can stimulate the economy. I do know that many people at all levels prospered during Viet Nam and openly attributed their financial success to that war.

          • Jamermorrow

            No doubt some benefit because the government takes money from one group and gives it to another. It is wealth redistribution. If you are on the receiving end you benefit. The economy as a whole suffers because you have capital being directed by the government rather then by private investment. Central economic planning does not help the economy. You can’t just look at the seen you need to look at the unseen.

          • Brenarlo

            You are correct, sir.

          • SigFan

            I agree with both of your statements. What the guy on the radio was saying though (Mark Steyn, I think)was that in the aftermath of both WW’s the USA was kind of the last man standing, since we didn’t suffer both the physical and economic destruction visited on Europe and Japan. Consequently as the rest of the world tried to rebuild and recover, we became the economic powerhouse and supplied the majority of goods and services the rest of the world needed and lacked the capacity to produce for themselves. Of course, both of those wars were pre ICBM’s and tactical nukes, which we all know can and would be used against the continental USA if it comes to that again. Let’s hope not – but as we both said, I feel it coming.

          • $8194357

            There are alot of WW II connections to these events if you know where to look for them….

            Quote:
            “Birds of a feather?”

            German scholar Matthias Kuentzel, in his book Jihad and Jew-hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11,” writes that Islamism’s rise was inspired by the rise of Fascism and Nazism, and that it was established as a mass movement by the Muslim Brotherhood, which stands in relation to al Qaeda as the Bolsheviks to Communism. A similar coalition today involves Radical Islam and the Hate America Left.

            The Soros factor

            Those who have followed these columns over the years will not be surprised to learn that George Soros is involved in all this. Soros wants to bring down America and its capitalist system — except as it benefits him and his like-minded “one-worlder” cronies. That leaves out the rest of us.

            Investigative WorldNetDaily journalist Aaron Klein reports the left-wing moneybags has led a “crisis management group,” the Economic Development Fund, which “has long petitioned the Egyptian government to normalize ties with the Muslim Brotherhood,” which Klein reminds us is “the main opposition in Egypt.” With that wind to its back, the Muslim Brotherhood cannot be discounted as the ultimate victor (possibly in a “second wave” revolution) in Egypt.

            The International Crisis Group (ISG) of which Soros is a board member, has leaned on the just-departed Mubarak government to “pave the way for the regularization of the Muslim Brothers’ participation in political life.”

            http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/110214

            The Nazi connection to Muslim Brotherhood again…

        • Brenarlo

          War is NOT good for the economy. That premise rests on failed Keynesian policies that believe that government spending money equals a better economy.

          • SigFan

            See the statement immediately above. I never said that the war itself was good for the economy, nor did the commenter on the radio. It was after the wars that we experienced economic growth – for a variety of reason.

    • Jamermorrow

      We did not recover from the great depression until 1946. The recovery happened after we lowered federal spending by half. Many economies were in shambles because of the war and had to buy from the U.S. If war is good for the economy why not be at war forever? We could just build cities and destroy them with bombs. I can’t believe that conservatives buy the argument that war is good for the economy. Capital is a scarce resource and if capital is being used on war or war making goods then less capital is being used on other goods. Also the government must take money in the form of taxation to pay for these war goods. This means you have less to spend on consumer goods, less to save, and less to invest. War is necessary some times but it is not good for the economy. Some businesses benefit that are getting the government spending during war time but this means other businesses have to pay which hurts them. Government spending during wartime distorts the market by giving people jobs in areas that otherwise would not exist. Many bubbles are created during war time.

    • $8194357

      Speaking of WW II. Here are some interesting facts about the Swiss bankers who support the current administration along with the OSI run by Soros. A long history between Soros, Nazi’s and Swiss bankers…

      Quote:
      Obama and The Brotherhood

      By all indications, the president’s agenda appears to include destroying not just America, but Western Civilization as well, as evidenced by his dictatorial handling of the Egyptian uprising and his throwing of support behind the dangerous Muslim Brotherhood.

      That organization’s goal is global Islamic domination, imposition of Sharia law on all the world’s population, annihilation of Israel, and the collapse of all Western institutions. Linked to the Nazis during World War II, and fond of disseminating Hitler’s Mein Kampf, the Muslim Brotherhood has sought to “deepen and extend already existing hostile views about Jews and secular Western societies generally,” according to author Jeffrey Herf.

      http://www.renewamerica.com/analysis/jon/110214

      The Egyptian Muslim Nazi connection. Many of the former Nazi’s not tried for war crimes moved to Egypt and converted to Islam after WW II. The other interesting part of the Nazi connection is that they transferred the stolen gold, diamonds, art and money from the Jewish folks and countries they conquered to Swiss banks…The Swiss banks connection to Soros the former Nazi informant in Hungry and the Clinton and Obama administrations is a very ripe apple that needs to be picked and examined a lot closer…

  • http://sayanythingblog.com Mountainmouth

    With these economic results –
    Barry can now read from TOTUS with a “Mission Accomplished” sign in the background

  • LastBestHope

    Krauthammer called the submission of this so called budget a “near scandal”…ripped it as a hoax that will in fact, increase the debt some 9 trillion over the next 10 years…. and the so called debt reduction of 1.1 trillion is achieved by raising taxes over 2 trillion.

    the GOP leaders were in agreement

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/4538751/republicans-attack-obamas-budget/?playlist_id=86927

  • Ecal

    Obama’s proposed budget grows the national debt to 21 trillion….Where are all the liberal apologists who stand behind Obama no matter how destructive he is to everyone?

    • Gophaterfan

      All you neoconservatives can howl but you are the suckers who will have to distribute your stolen riches to pay the 21 trillion…HA!

      • yy4u2

        Get ready to be displaced from your parents’ basement. Life is tough. It’s even tougher when you’re stupid. Some day you may make it out of the stupid syndrome.

  • Mark

    how can you stop an avalanche of over spending and waste
    simply irresponsible
    for both parties
    for decades

Top