[VIDEO] CBO: Debt Headed to 103% of GDP; Level Seen Only in WWII; 'No Way to Predict Whether or When' Fiscal Crisis Might Occur Here

(CNSNews.com) - Testifying in the U.S Senate yesterday, Congressional Budget Office Director Keith Hall warned that the publicly held debt of the U.S. government, when measured as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, is headed toward a level the United States has seen only once in its history—at the end of World War II.

To simply contain the debt at the high historical level where it currently sits—74 percent of GDP--would require either significant increases in federal tax revenue or decreases in non-interest federal spending (or a combination of the two).

Historically, U.S. government debt as a percentage of GDP hit its peak in 1945 and 1946, when it was 104 percent and 106 percent of GDP respectively.

In 2015, the CBO estimates that the U.S. government debt will be 74 percent of GDP. That is higher than the 69-percent-of-GDP debt the U.S. government had in 1943—the second year after Pearl Harbor.

By 2039, CBO projects, the debt will increase to 101 percent of GDP and by 2040 to 103 percent GDP.

At that point, Hall told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the “debt would still be on an upward path relative to the size of the economy.”

While the run up in debt as a percentage of GDP in the 1940s financed a global war against Nazi Germany and Japan that ended with an allied victory, the current run toward unprecedented debt is based on projected increases in mandatory federal spending for entitlement programs. These include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare subsidies.

“Mainly because of the aging of the population and rising health care costs, the extended baseline projections show revenues that fall well short of spending over the long term, producing a substantial imbalance in the federal budget,” Hall said in his written testimony.

“As a result, budget deficits are projected to rise steadily and, by 2040, to raise federal debt held by the public to a percentage of GDP seen at only one previous time in U.S. history—the final year of World War II and the following year,” he said.

“Moreover,” he said, “debt would still be on an upward path relative to the size of the economy. Consequently, the policy changes needed to reduce debt to any given amount would become larger and larger over time. The rising debt could not be sustained indefinitely; the government’s creditors would eventually begin to doubt its ability to cut spending or raise revenues by enough to pay its debt obligations, forcing the government to pay much higher interest rates to borrow money.”

Eventually, the nation would face a crisis—with wary investors demanding “much higher interest” rates to buy U.S. government debt.

“How long the nation could sustain such growth in federal debt is impossible to predict with any confidence,’ testified Hall. “At some point, investors would begin to doubt the government’s willingness or ability to meet its debt obligations, requiring it to pay much higher interest costs in order to continue borrowing money.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

Press Fails to Note That Weak First-Quarter Economies Have Been a Democrat Phenomenon

The business press has gotten really excited about the possibility — some of them are even treating it as a probability — that the first-quarter's recently reported annualized economic contraction of 0.7 percent will go positive if it gets revised for so-called "residual seasonality.

" "Residual seasonality" is "the manifestation of seasonal patterns in data that have already been seasonally adjusted." (Supposedly, the way to fix this is add more "seasoning.") On April 22, CNBC's Steve Liesman contended that it's been a chronic 30-year problem. As far as I can tell, no one in the press has followed up on that claim. If they had, they would have found that it has not been a 30-year "problem," and that it's a "problem" remarkably unique to the presence of Democratic Party presidential administrations and policies:

 There was virtually no net first-quarter GDP underperformance from 1985-1992, i.e., the first eight of the 30 years Liesman claimed the trend has been present. He certainly should not have included those years, which "just so happen" to have had GOP presidential administrations (Ronald Reagan from 1985-1988 and Bush 41 from 1989-1992). 

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading....

Blame It on Global Cooling? Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of Any President on Record

 Even if you leave out the first quarter of 2009—when the recession that started in December 2007 was still ongoing--President Barack Obama has presided over the lowest average first-quarter GDP growth of any president who has served since 1947, which is the earliest year for which the Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated quarterly GDP growth. 

In all first quarters since 1947, the real annual rate of growth of GDP has averaged 4.0 percent.

In the seven first quarters during Obama’s presidency, it has declined by an average of -0.43 percent. And if you leave out the first quarter of 2009 and look only at the first quarters of the six years since the recession ended, it has averaged only 0.4 percent.

In the six years of Harry Truman’s presidency for which the BEA has calculated quarterly GDP, the annual rate of growth in GDP in the first quarter averaged 4.5 percent.

During President Eisenhower’s eight years, it averaged 3.2 percent. During Kennedy’s three years, it averaged 4.9 percent. During Johnson’s five years, it averaged 8.3 percent. During Nixon’s six years, it averaged 5.3 percent. During Ford’s two years, it averaged 2.3 percent. During Carter’s four years, it average 2.4 percent. During Reagan’s eight years, it average 2.1 percent. During George H.W. Bush’s four years, it average 2.9 percent. During Clinton’s eight years, it averaged 2.6 percent. And during George W. Bush’s eight years, it averaged 1.7 percent.

President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009. In the first quarter of 2009, GDP declined at an annual rate of -5.4 percent. In the first quarter of 2010, it grew by 1.7 percent. In the first quarter of 2011, it declined -1.5 percent. In the first quarter of 2012, it grew 2.3 percent. In the first quarter of 2013, it grew 2.7 percent. In the first quarter of 2014, it declined -2.1 percent. And in the first quarter of 2015, it declined -0.7 percent.

In these seven first quarters that Obama has been president (2009 through 2015), the annual rate of growth in GDP has declined at an average rate of -0.43 percent.

But the National Bureau of Economic Research says the last recession, which began on December 2007 did not end until June 2009. If you leave out the first quarter of 2009, and only count the six years (2010-2015) since the recession ended in June 2009, real annual rate of growth of GDP in the post-recession first quarters of Obama’s presidency has averaged 0.4 percent.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

HILLARY CLINTON: WE ARE OUT OF THE ECONOMIC HOLE

We have put the word stupid in her brain!!!

Meanwhile, numbers are out today on the first quarter of this year and the economy is still shrinking! They had predicted 0.2% growth but it didn’t even do that well. It shrank 0.7%.

If a shrinking economy is Hillary’s idea of an economy that is doing well, then I’d hate to see her idea of an economy that is in trouble:

USA TODAY – The U.S. economy shrank in the first quarter as the nation’s trade deficit widened and business stockpiling slowed.

Gross domestic product — the value of goods and services produced in the U.S. — contracted at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 0.7% in the January-March period, the Commerce Department said Friday. That’s well below the modest 0.2% growth the government initially estimated.

The report was the government’s second estimate of first-quarter GDP. It will publish a final estimate in June.

Via: The Right Scoop

Continue Reading....

US GOVERNMENT TO REVIEW MYSTERY OF SLOW 1ST QUARTER GROWTH

WASHINGTON (AP) -- There's something strange about the U.S. economy in the first three months of every year: It frequently grows at a much slower pace than in the other nine months.

And on Friday, the government agency charged with calculating the economy's growth rate said it would adjust its methods in an effort to resolve the problem.

The changes could paint a much different picture of the economy's recent performance. Concerns flared when the government said late last month that the economy expanded just 0.2 percent at an annual rate in the first quarter. But many economists have challenged the government's data, and some have argued the first-quarter figure should be as high as 1.8 percent instead.

At issue is a process known as "seasonal adjustment," which is not nearly as convoluted as it sounds. Many routine patterns affect the economy, such as the layoff of temporary retail employees after the winter holidays, or a spike in consumer spending around Easter. Seasonal adjustment attempts to factor out those patterns to get a clearer picture of how the economy is actually performing.

Via: AP

Continue Reading....

4TH QUARTER GDP SLASHED 25%

The Commerce Department announced Friday that its revised estimate of GDP growth in the 4th Quarter was revised down to 2.4% annual growth. Initial estimates had put GDP growth at 3.2%. Economists had expected a downward revision to 2.5%, making Friday's report a disappointment. It is a dramatic drop from the 3rd Quarter estimate of 4.1% growth. 

For the full year, the economy grew by a weak 1.9% in 2013. This is down sharply from the 2.8% growth registered in 2012. The downward revisions in the 4th Quarter numbers reflected smaller than estimated increases in personal consumption and private inventory build-ups. 

The markets and many economists continue to expect an acceleration in economic growth in 2014. Recent data, however, counters this sentiment. The economy did seem to pick up steam in the 3rd Quarter last year, but the year ended with a clear deceleration in the economy. 

One surprise in Friday's report was an increase in inflation higher than initial estimated. Prices increased 1.5% in the 4th Quarter, 25% higher than originally reported. Excluding food and energy, prices rose 1.8% in the quarter, compared to a 1.5% increase in the 3rd Quarter. 

Via: Bretibart

Continue Reading.....

Kristol, Carville spar over Obama approval numbers

On Monday’s “Morning Joe” on MSNBC, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol and Democratic strategist James Carville debated President Barack Obama’s low opinion numbers and if there are any hopes Obama can rebound and do something with his presidency.

Kristol downplayed the historical significance of the sinking numbers and suggested this had more to do with Obama’s failed policies.

“Can I say that you guys are over thinking this?” Kristol said. “Deep, historical, systemic things — Obamacare is a total disaster. If Obamacare were working well and if we were respected around the world and people had the sense that Iranians were in retreat and our allies had confidence in us, don’t you think Obama’s points would be 10 points higher? I don’t think this is due to history. This is due to the fact that his actual policies are failing: Americans are losing health insurance and Iranians are keeping their nuclear program.”

Carville fired back by saying there are a lot of things looking good for Obama and room for improvement, which in his opinion is cause not to give up on the president.

“Can I make a point here?” Carville replied. “The deficit is dropping as a percentage of GDP faster thany anytime since World War II. He saved the auto industry. Health-care costs are flattening any time better in the last 20 years. Teenage pregnancy is at an all-time low. And the health care thing — who’s to say. I do not know. But on Nov. 30 suppose it’s working well. Then that story will fade somewhat in the background. I think we can stop putting the nails in the coffin here. We can admit that there’s some real, deep, fundamental problems with this president. But I think we’re throwing the dirt here too soon, guys, I really do.”

Kristol agreed a lot hinged on the success of Obama’s policies, but that success could be a tall order.

“I agree with James in the sense it all depends on policies. If Obamacare works, if it turns out, hey, they love that new health insurance they’re paying more for and the system works wonderfully, the central planning for 320 million people really works much better than one might think it might, that’ll be — then he’ll be in better shape. Indeed — and, indeed, if Iran starts dismantling its nuclear weapons and we’re stronger around the world and people stop dying in Syria and so forth, then Obama’s numbers will go up. I agree. It’s about substance.”

Carville added that Obama has kept the country out of wars, but said the self-imposed Nov. 30 deadline to see that the Obamacare website functions properly will play in huge for Obama’s public opinion numbers.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Economy Still Growing Too Slowly

The Bureau of Economic Analysis’s (BEA) first estimate of economic growth for the third quarter of this year shows an economy that continues to grow at a plodding pace.

According to BEA, the economy grew at 2.8 percent from July 1 through September 30. This was slightly faster than the 2.5 percent the economy grew in in the second quarter of the year.

The main driver of growth in the third quarter was increased investment, the strongest component of which was a sharp climb in business inventories. Inventory accumulation could mean either that businesses didn’t sell as much as they anticipated during the third quarter or that they ramped up production in anticipation of a busy fourth quarter. Time will tell which.

Personal consumption was also a large contributor to growth. Purchases of durable goods—such as cars and home furnishings—drove the growth in consumption.

This is BEA’s first estimate of growth in the third quarter, and subsequent estimates will change.

Updated estimates won’t change the fact that growth continues to be too slow. Compared to previous recoveries from steep recessions, it is clear growth should be much more robust at this point. For instance, after a comparable period following the steep 1981–1982 recession, growth averaged 3.5 percent annually. And that was after periods of growth that were three times stronger than what we’ve seen since the last recession ended.

Via: The Foundry

Continue Reading.....

A Tale of Two States, CA and NV: Part II

In September, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval delivered the Republican Party’s weekly address. In the video, which lasted less than six minutes, Sandoval blasted the Obama administration’s handling of the economic recovery and touted Nevada’s approach.

Sandoval, elaborating on how dire the economic situation in Nevada was when he took office in early 2011, said that “mere survival” was not good enough for his state. He said that he ordered all new regulations be frozen until they could be reviewed; cut spending by hundreds of millions of dollars; balanced Nevada’s budget; merged and eliminated state agencies; and extended tax exemptions for businesses. (Sandoval, working with a Democrat-controlled state legislature, later agreed to extend some taxes that had been set to expire.)

In the video, Sandoval pointed out that Nevada had experienced 31 months of economic growth and had the second strongest decline in unemployment in the nation. He also claimed that a wide array of businesses now had plans to move to Nevada.

“When it comes to growing jobs, it is my responsibility to leave no stone unturned when it comes to getting Nevada working again,” he added.

So what exactly are those plans?

Selling Nevada

Nevada’s pitch to firms interested in expanding or relocating to the state is simple. The state has some of the lowest taxes in America. California’s top income tax rate is 13.3 percent; Nevada has no state income tax.

Nevada’s regulations are limited. Given the state’s size, working with government is quick and easy (California businesses often complain about how long routine approvals take). Some firms — though certainly not all — are coaxed with even more tax incentives. And Las Vegas — known for its tourism, as well as the benefits that come with being a large metropolitan area — has always been a major selling point.

A patchwork assortment of agencies remains tasked with selling that message to firms that might want to expand or grow in Nevada.

At the top is the Governor’s Office of Economic Development. Historically, the lieutenant governor was tasked with running economic development in Nevada, but 2011 legislation centralized power in the governor’s office by creating the OED.

Sandoval has aggressively courted major companies since. In early 2012, he announced the state would attempt to create 50,000 jobs by 2014. Apple and Starbucks have both moved parts of their business to Nevada as a result of negotiations handled primarily through the OED. (Apple received a large tax break.)

In addition to attracting outside states, the OED focuses on attracting workers to some of Nevada’s core industries like gaming and tourism, as well as mining. The office is also pushing to expand the small tech industry in southern Nevada, along with logistics and transportation industries.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading.....

A Tale of Two States, CA and NV: Part I

Recently, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a new pact with Nevada, effectively conceding to Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval’s demands that California be more open to economic development along the beautiful Lake Tahoe shoreline. It was a rare moment of agreement — created through deft political maneuvering on Nevada’s behalf — between two states that have taken different approaches to taxes, regulations, environmentalism and development.

For Californians, the moment should also be a teachable lesson about the differences between the two states — and how those differences will ultimately affect the quality of each state. But to understand how California will be affected, it’s important to first look at where Nevada was, where it is now, and where it’s headed.

It begins with the Great Recession.

Collapse

In the fall of 2008, just five years ago, the global economic slide that began in late 2007 took a turn for the worse. Millions of jobs were lost, the United States’ GDP shrunk, major financial institutions collapsed, the housing bubble burst, and unemployment rose to record levels.

The Great Recession hit America hard, but it hit some states harder. Nevada may have been hit harder than any other state — probably because it was doing so well before the recession struck.

Nevada experienced tremendous economic growth leading up to the recession. Between 2000 and 2010, Nevada’s population grew 35 percent. Housing prices skyrocketed, and new homes were being built at record numbers. Anyone walking down the Las Vegas strip would see constant, tremendous change. But the boom times ended with the national economic collapse — and Nevada, the brightest star, burned the fastest.

Nevada’s housing market remained in terrible condition well into 2012, though signs of improvement have since emerged. A January 2012 CNN Money piece laid out just how badly the housing market had become in Nevada:

A staggering 1 in 16 homes have been hit with a foreclosure filing, versus the national rate of 1 in 69 homes. And more than half of borrowers owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth, compared to just over a fifth nationwide.

Meanwhile, home prices continue to plummet. S&P/Case Shiller recently reported that Las Vegas home prices fell by 9.1% over the 12 months ending in November, the second-worst performance among the 20 cities surveyed. The reason: a high number of foreclosure sales.

The myriad foreclosure prevention programs rolled out by the Obama administration have done little to stabilize housing and the economy in this hard-hit state, housing counselors say.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading,,,,,

Reality check: The United States has added two times more debt than wealth in the past two years

It’s mighty tempting to look at the current shutdown/debt-ceiling fight as some kind of perverse abstraction, and to dismiss all of the hijinks on Capitol Hill and in the White House as exhibitions happening merely for their own political sakes — i.e., to completely divorce it all from the real reason we’re actually here right now. We are a stone’s throw away from$17 trillion in national debt, with absolutely zero plans to even just stop aggressively addingto that number, let alone come anywhere close to simply breaking even. So many liberals are so blithely convinced that ‘we face no impending debt crisis’ and that the simple legislative act of once again raising the debt ceiling has no substantive reason to devolve into such a circus — but here’s a handy little chart to consider, first posted by the Weekly Standard from the Senate Budget Committee:

…When the Treasury department started using so-called extraordinary measures to avoid a breach of the debt ceiling in May, 2011, the debt limit stood at $14,294 billion.

“Today it stands at $16,699 billion, which was reached when Treasury started using extraordinary measures in May of this year.  That’s a $2,405 billion increase in 2 years.

“Meanwhile, the economy, as measured by GDP only increased by $1,199 billion between the second quarter of 2011 and the second quarter of this year.

Read: The amount of debt we incurred over the past two years was double the amount of wealth we added to our GDP; or, the rate at which our debt is growing is two times the rate at which our economy is growing — and Democrats’ only proffered solutions to this entirely unsustainable scenario are 1) increasing government spending and 2) raising taxes. Awesome.

Via: Hot AIr

Continue Reading.....

CBO Sees Increasing 'Risk of a Fiscal Crisis'

(CNSNews.com) - The Congressional Budget Office released its 2013 long-term budget outlook on Tuesday, stating that "a large and continually growing federal debt ...would increase the probability of a fiscal crisis for the United States."

The report says under current laws and policies, the federal debt could reach 100 percent of Gross Domestic Product in 2038.

It also projects that the federal government's health care spending "will grow considerably in 2014 because of changes made by the Affordable Care Act."

CBO says federal debt held by the public is now about 73 percent of the economy’s annual output, or gross domestic product. "That percentage is higher than at any point in U.S. history except a brief period around World War II, and it is twice the percentage at the end of 2007," the report said.

If current laws stay generally the same, CBO expects federal debt held by the public to decline slightly relative to GDP over the next several years, but after that, deficits would grow again, partly because of the the government’s major health care programs (Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and subsidies to be provided through the new Obamacare health insurance exchanges).

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

Obama's GDP Magic

Magic is the art of illusion.  The same can be said of the Obama administration's recently revised second-quarter GDP figures.  There's a lot less there than meets the eye.

On Thursday, the Bureau of Economic Analysis issued a report that revised second-quarter GDP numbers up from 1.7% to a more robust 2.5%.  Not exactly a colossal number, but respectable -- that is, until you look up the magician's sleeve.

In reality, much of the upward revision resulted from improving balance of trade numbers, which are factored into GDP.  It wasn't that more Americans were working, producing more, or earning more -- it was that they were importing less and exporting more.  As a result, second-quarter GDP shot upward, making it look like the economy has turned around.  It has not.

The BEA report itself made it clear that the Obama economy continues to limp along.  Key elements of GDP related to wage growth remain anemic, including real personal consumption expenditures, nondurable goods, and spending on services.  All of these declined in the second quarter.

No wonder personal consumption declined.  More than 80% of jobs created year to date are part-time, low-paying jobs.  No wonder fast-food workers are striking.  Not that striking will do them much good -- they should be marching on the White House.

An unprecedented number of Americans are still laboring at minimum wage, and in most cases part-time, and the reason is Obama's hostility toward business.  Increased regulation, higher taxes on small business owners, and ObamaCare have stalled economic growth in the U.S.  Given the number of Americans who are still looking for employment, the idea of $15 an hour for fry cooks is laughable.  A vote for Obama was a vote for $7.25 an hour.  Get used to it.   

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

THE BIG FAIL: Third Quarter GDP Report Indicates The New Obama Normal: Stagnation

THE THIRD QUARTER GDP REPORT CONFIRMS AN ANEMIC RECOVERY UNDER OBAMA

The First Of Three Estimates Of Growth For The July-September Quarter Sketched A Picture That’s Been Familiar All Year: The Economy Is Growing At A Tepid Rate…” “The first of three estimates of growth for the July-September quarter sketched a picture that’s been familiar all year: The economy is growing at a tepid rate, slowed by high unemployment and corporate anxiety over an unresolved budget crisis and a slowing global economy.” (“US Economic Growth Improves To 2 Percent Rate In Q3 On Higher Defense, Consumer Spending,” The Associated Press , 10/26/12)

National GDP Grew By 2 Percent In The Third Quarter. “Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — increased at an annual rate of 2.0 percent in the third quarter of 2012 (that is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the “advance” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.” (Press Release, “National Income And Product Accounts – Gross Domestic Product: Third Quarter 2012 (Advance Estimate),” Bureau Of Economic Analysis, 10/26/12)

The Average GDP Growth For 2012 Thus Far In The Year Trails That Of 2011. “And the 1.74 percent rate for 2012 trails last year’s 1.8 percent growth, a point GOP nominee Mitt Romney will emphasize.” (Christopher S. Rugaber, “US Economic Growth Improves To 2 Pct. Rate In Q3,” The Associated Press , 10/26/12)

• “Growth Was Held Back By The First Drop In Exports In More Than Three Years And Flat Business Investment In Equipment And Software.” (Christopher S. Rugaber, “US Economic Growth Improves To 2 Pct. Rate In Q3,” The Associated Press , 10/26/12)

• “Growth Was Held Back By The First Drop In Exports In More Than Three Years And Flat Business Investment In Equipment And Software.” (“US Economic Growth Improves to 2 Percent Rate In Q3 On Higher Defense, Consumer Spending,” The Associated Press , 10/26/12)

• Sectors That Previously Drove Growth In The Economy “Are Now Fading.” “While growth remains modest, the factors supporting the economy have changed. Exports and business investment drove growth for most of the recovery, but are now fading. Meanwhile, consumer spending has ticked up. And housing is adding to growth after a six-year slump.” (“U.S. Economic Growth Improves To 2 Percent Rate In Q3 On Higher Defense, Consumer Spending,” The Associated Press , 10/26/12)

• “Weaker Business Investment Held Back Growth…” “Weaker business investment held back growth in the third quarter, a sign that companies are hesitant to spend amid broad uncertainty over policies in Washington and slowing demand from abroad. Nonresidential fixed investment, a category that includes business spending on structures and equipment, fell 1.3% during the third quarter, compared with a 3.6% gain the prior period.” (Jeffrey Sparshott and Eric Morath, “GDP Rises 2%, Helped By Consumers,” The Wall Street Journal, 10/26/12)

• “Since The Recovery From The Great Recession Began In June 2009, The U.S. Economy Has Grown At The Slowest Rate Of Any Recovery In The Post-World War II Period.” (“US Economic Growth Improves To 2 Percent Rate In Q3 On Higher Defense, Consumer Spending,” The Associated Press , 10/26/12)

Via: GOP.com

Continue Reading,,,

Politics: Terrific: More Americans are getting government health care than are working

When you really think about it, it’s a stunning fact. There are now more people in America receiving government health care benefits – Medicare and Medicaid – than there are full-time workers in the economy.

It’s an eye-opener, but it’s more than that. It’s also evidence that we have a system that, by definition, cannot be sustained.

Medicaid and Medicare had a gross combined enrollment of 119,249,000 in 2011. At the same time, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics said that 112,556,000 people worked full-time in the United States in 2011, including 17,806,000 who worked for all levels of government and 94,750,000 who worked for the private sector.

Who do you think pays for the benefits enjoyed by Medicare and Medicaid recipients? Private-sector workers, of course. Now of course, government workers pay taxes too. But where do you think the money comes from to the pay the salaries of government workers at every level of government? From private-sector workers! Without private-sector workers first paying taxes, there would be no government salaries from which to withhold taxes.

The bottom line is that private-sector producers ultimately must generate all the wealth that’s needed to support government at every level. We already know that the federal government is spending 25 percent of the nation’s entire $14 trillion economy, but when you include state, county and local governments, then add in local school districts all across the country, government is actually spending more than 40 percent of GDP.

President Obama likes to say that we have such a large deficit because the rich don’t pay enough taxes. No. The reason we have such a large deficit is that there are not enough people producing in the private-sector to pay for the size of government, and one of the biggest costs in government is the health care benefits we’re paying to 119 million people – more than a third of the entire population. It’s true that many of the current recipients have paid into the system during their lives, some for many years. But the bottom line remains that such a system is unsustainable.

Via: CainTV

Continue Reading...