This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The CBO Issues Most Dire Warning On US Budget Yet, Warns US Debt Will "Swiftly Be Pushed To Unsustainable Levels"
In its just released Long-Term Budget Outlook, the CBO has come out with the most dire warnings on the US projected debt to date. In summary, the healthcare spending and the Social
Security will consume an increasing portion of the budget and will push the national debt up sharply unless lawmakers act, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf warned. "CBO projects, the aging of the population and the rising cost of health care will cause spending on the major mandatory health care programs and Social Security to grow from roughly 10 percent of GDP today to about 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now if current laws are not changed." While this does not sound too dramatic, the way it is attained is with the following ludicrous assumptions (which Paul Krugman would certainly call perfectly normal): "government spending on everything other than the major mandatory health care programs, Social Security, and interest on federal debt—activities such as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—would decline to the lowest percentage of GDP since before World War II." Good luck with that. In the more realistic, alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO observes, that "with significantly lower revenues and higher outlays, debt would reach 87 percent of GDP by 2020, CBO projects. After that, the growing imbalance between revenues and noninterest spending, combined with spiraling interest payments, would swiftly push debt to unsustainable levels. Debt as a share of GDP would exceed its historical peak of 109 percent by 2025 and would reach 185 percent in 2035." The CBO's conclusion is a nightmare to each and every hard-core Keynesian fundamentalist (you know who you are): "the sooner that long-term changes to spending and revenues are agreed on, and the sooner they are carried out once the economic weakness ends, the smaller will be the damage to the economy from growing federal debt. Earlier action would require more sacrifices by earlier generations to benefit future generations, but it would also permit smaller or more gradual changes and would give people more time to adjust to them."
The summary critical presentation from the Congressional Budget Office (the full one with a lot of useless charts can be found here). This is very apropos as the US will likely never againhave a budget again so long as the current administration is in place.
The Long-Term Budget Outlook
Recently, the federal government has been recording the largest budget deficits, as a share of the economy, since the end of World War II. As a result of those deficits, the amount of federal debt held by the public has surged. At the end of 2008, that debt equaled 40 percent of the nation’s annual economic output (as measured by gross domestic product, or GDP), a little above the 40 year average of 36 percent. Since then, large budget deficits have caused debt held by the public to shoot upward; the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that federal debt will reach 62 percent of GDP by the end of this year—the highest percentage since shortly after World War II. The sharp rise in debt stems partly from lower tax revenues and higher federal spending related to the recent severe recession and turmoil in financial markets. However, the growing debt also reflects an imbalance between spending and revenues that predated those economic developments.
As the economy recovers and the policies adopted to counteract the recession and the financial turmoil phase out, budget deficits will probably decline markedly in the next few years. But over the long term, the budget outlook is daunting. The retirement of the baby boom generation portends a significant and sustained increase in the share of the population receiving benefits from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Moreover, per capita spending for health care is likely to continue rising faster than spending per person on other goods and services for many years (although the magnitude of that gap is very uncertain). Without significant changes in government policy, those factors will boost federal outlays sharply relative to GDP in coming decades under any plausible assumptions about future trends in the economy, demographics, and health care costs.
The Outlook for Major Health Care Programs and Social Security
CBO projects that if current laws do not change, federal spending on major mandatory health care programs will grow from roughly 5 percent of GDP today to about 10 percent in 2035 and will continue to increase thereafter. Those projections include all of the effects of the recently enacted health care legislation, which is expected to increase federal spending in the next 10 years and for most of the following decade. By 2030, however, that legislation will slightly reduce federal spending for health care if all of its provisions are fully implemented, CBO projects. That reduction in the level of spending in 2030 yields lower projections of health care spending in the longer term—even though, owing to the great uncertainties involved in projecting such spending many decades in the future, enactment of the legislation did not cause CBO to change its estimates of longer term growth rates for spending on the government’s health care programs.
Under current law, spending on Social Security is also projected to rise over time as a share of GDP, albeit much less dramatically. CBO projects that Social Security spending will increase from less than 5 percent of GDP today to about 6 percent in 2030 and then stabilize at roughly that level.
All told, CBO projects, the aging of the population and the rising cost of health care will cause spending on the major mandatory health care programs and Social Security to grow from roughly 10 percent of GDP today to about 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now if current laws are not changed. (By comparison, spending on all of the federal government’s programs and activities, excluding interest payments on debt, has averaged 18.5 percent of GDP over the past 40 years.)
To put U.S. fiscal policy on a sustainable path, lawmakers would have to substantially reduce the growth in outlays for those programs relative to the amounts that CBO is projecting—or else match that growth with equivalent declines in other federal spending, corresponding increases in federal revenues, or some combination of the two.
Alternative Long-Term Scenarios
In this report, CBO presents the long-term budget picture under two scenarios that embody different assumptions about future policies governing federal revenues and spending. Budget projections grow increasingly uncertain as they extend farther into the future, so this report focuses largely on the next 25 years. However, because considerable interest exists in the longer-term outlook, figures showing projections through 2080 and associated data are available in Appendix A of the report, and associated data are available on CBO’s Web site (www.cbo.gov).
The first long-term budget scenario used in this analysis, the extended baseline scenario, adheres closely to current law. It incorporates CBO’s current estimate of the impact of the recently enacted health care legislation on revenues and mandatory spending. (That estimate is unchanged from the one that CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation published in March, when the legislation was being considered.) Under this scenario, the expiration of most of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher average tax rates.
Those rising rates, combined with the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, would push total revenues to 23 percent of GDP by 2035—much higher than has typically been seen in recent decades—and to larger percentages thereafter. At the same time, government spending on everything other than the major mandatory health care programs, Social Security, and interest on federal debt—activities such as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—would decline to the lowest percentage of GDP since before World War II.
That significant increase in revenues and decrease in the relative importance of other spending would offset much—though not all—of the rise in spending on health care programs and Social Security. As a result, debt would increase from its already high levels relative to GDP, as would the required interest payments on that debt.
Federal debt held by the public would grow from an estimated 62 percent of GDP this year to about 80 percent by 2035. Interest payments, which absorb federal resources that could otherwise be used to pay for government services, currently amount to more than 1 percent of GDP; under this scenario, they would rise to 4 percent of GDP (or one-sixth of federal revenues) by 2035.
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. In this scenario, CBO assumed that Medicare’s payment rates for physicians would gradually increase (which would not happen under current law) and that several policies enacted in the recent health care legislation that would restrain growth in health care spending would not continue in effect after 2020. In addition, under the alternative scenario, spending on activities other than the major mandatory health care programs, Social Security, and interest would fall below the average level of the past 40 years relative to GDP, though not as low as under the extended baseline scenario. More important, CBO assumed for this scenario that most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended, that the reach of the alternative minimum tax would be kept close to its historical extent, and that over the longer run, tax law would evolve further so that revenues would remain at about 19 percent of GDP, near their historical average.
Under that combination of policy assumptions, federal debt would grow much more rapidly than under the extended-baseline scenario. With significantly lower revenues and higher outlays, debt would reach 87 percent of GDP by 2020, CBO projects. After that, the growing imbalance between revenues and noninterest spending, combined with spiraling interest payments, would swiftly push debt to unsustainable levels. Debt as a share of GDP would exceed its historical peak of 109 percent by 2025 and would reach 185 percent in 2035.
Neither of those scenarios represents a prediction by CBO of what policies will be in effect during the next several decades. The policies adopted in coming years will surely differ from those assumed for the scenarios. (And even if the assumed policies were adopted, their economic and budgetary consequences would certainly differ from those projected in this report.) Nevertheless, these projections, encompassing two very different sets of policy assumptions, provide a clear indication of the serious nature of the fiscal challenge facing the nation.
The Impact of Growing Deficits and Debt
In fact, CBO’s projections understate the severity of the long-term budget problem because they do not incorporate the significant negative effects that accumulating substantial amounts of additional federal debt would have on the economy:
- Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to higher interest rates, more borrowing from abroad, and less domestic investment—which in turn would lower income growth in the United States.
- Growing debt would also reduce lawmakers’ ability to respond to economic downturns and other challenges.
- Over time, higher debt would increase the probability of a fiscal crisis in which investors would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget, and the government would be forced to pay much more to borrow money.
Keeping deficits and debt from growing to unsustainable levels would require raising revenues as a percentage of GDP significantly above past levels, reducing outlays sharply relative to CBO’s projections, or some combination of those approaches. Making such changes while economic activity and employment remain well below their potential levels would probably slow the economic recovery. However, the sooner that long-term changes to spending and revenues are agreed on, and the sooner they are carried out once the economic weakness ends, the smaller will be the damage to the economy from growing federal debt. Earlier action would require more sacrifices by earlier generations to benefit future generations, but it would also permit smaller or more gradual changes and would give people more time to adjust to them.
»
- 10590 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
What budget? We have no budget this year...
Translation: Social Security retirement will now be 90years when you can draw full benefits. At age 85 your Walmart greeter checks will not have SS witheld. You can pick up your Medicare Pez dispenser when your immediately family secures your Burial plot. Of course the contents of said dispenser require application for prescription drugs to whichever congressional office is located nearest to the corporate home office of the drugs manufacturer and prior campaign reelection fund donations are mandatory before application. See Obamacare Ombudsman pub #4231
The US can default on grandma or it can default on the Japanese/Chinese.
At least grandma will spend the money inside the country....
Sounds like the CBO is setting the stage for the US government to start defaulting on the 2.5+ trillion Social Security fund...
Keeping deficits and debt from growing to unsustainable levels would require raising revenues as a percentage of GDP significantly above past levels, reducing outlays sharply relative to CBO’s projections, or some combination of those approaches. Making such changes while economic activity and employment remain well below their potential levels would probably slow the economic recovery.
I beg to differ. Free the people. Let economic activity seek the freely-determined level. I don't want Gentle Ben, BO or anyone in DC pretending to know whether GDP per capita is X or Y. None of their business. Just keep the ship of state afloat and we'll do the rest.
Sure thing: what need have we to worry about the real world when confronting things like capitalism in terminal decay, right?
Since the whole wide world is your little marketplace (that's how God made it), you never have to even bother with the real economy. You can spend all your time in Austiran-school make-believe world . . . must be nice.
So the "real economy" is whatever the central planners declare it is after they've bloated government to encompass a third or more of it, and stolen half the earnings of those busting their asses to pay off those who sit around waiting for checks?
I guess maybe this time that won't end in grinding poverty, crushing authoritarianism, and massive failure...
CBO = teabagging rascists.
Hahaha.
Ya know..... the Tea Party is a group of people voting out the career Republicans that vote against conservative values.
IF the democrats in this country would stand up to their corrupt politicians then they might have the right to put the Tea Party Down.
Do you like Pelosi, Boxer, Frank and Rangel? How about the KKK Leader BYRD that just kicked the bucket? Did you agree with his values?
We will work on our house but you need to get off your ASS and work on yours, or SHUT UP!
*Disclaimer I am registered as an Independant and my first ever vote when I became eligable was for Bill Clinton (didn't vote for him the second time).
LG,
Yep, at least the Tea Party, is putting feet on their faith, and moving folks out,at an alarming rate(for) of the GOP,and a few surprises for Dems thus far.
They need to wake their ass up(Dem/GOP).........these folks are playing for keeps, they represent the middle of America, and are middle, UPPER middle class, or (Bus Owners) for the most part..they have had a gut full.
Ignore them at your peril, if your a Fascist/Marxist/Progressive.
Or a POSER.Calling them perjoratives doesn't blunt their numbers or clout.
Until the last 3 cycles, always a GOP supporter, now Independent/Libertarian.
Back to the Const/Articles of Confederation/BOR's, or Bust.
POTUS, can stack the court, and they can make laws contrary to the Original intent............
We can also, change the Const, and re-frame ALL if these sorry pricks job descriptions, and job limits.
DZ--+1, but probably not Articles of Confederation, we don't need no stinkin' Shay's rebellion again. Moving people isn't the half of it. My entire family (mostly small business, me the exception) is more or less energized, huge effort to get Scott Brown elected, lots of just work and sign holding. Great reception from lots of people, Marsha Cokley didn't do herself much good either.
I'm worried about opening up Con Con to re-frame ALL, don't know how that would go and Our Dear President and team could influence/drive things badly. How about following the agreement and changing it the way it is supposed to?
But the lame-duck session will be fireworks. Especially if things go wildly anti-incumbent.
So I'm mostly cash with some small short, keeping learning. Thanks to all.
- Ned
I can tell you believe strongly, Lucky. But do you really believe "We will work on our house?" C'mon. Are the Dems actually doing that? Nope. Politics on both sides. And the tea folks seem to me to be about government debt. Hard to argue...
Jokes, people. Tone it down a bit. You have to enjoy the insanity while it lasts.
Besides, we wouldn't be in this position if it wasn't for that fucking leprechaun stealing our gold and taking it to Bilbon.
This is your gold on NYMEX.
http://www.kitco.com/charts/livegold.html
And this is your government policy on drugs.
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/04/11/amd_obama_geithner.jpg
http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/200...
http://dailybail.com/storage/ObamaMeetsHeadsMajorBanksWhiteHousevVu7Lgk1...
http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2009/11/17/news/photos_stories/cropped/s...
"Baw bwa bwa bwa...."
Barney Frank v Harvard Student:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0ZcVsVTPrQ&feature=player_embedded#!
1) I don't buy the deficit-to-GDP approach - the true measure should be deficit-to-revenues. The public <might> be a bit more interested to learn the Fed Gov spends 80% more than its revenues. Balancing the budget without imposing a crisis - at this point - is impossible.
2) Shadowstats does some great work on the deficit/debt - I agree with some of the above posters - there's now way we make 2035, or any of the out years discussed. I think we have weeks or months before the liquidity crisis begins.
3) Oh, gotta run, Apple just called and my iPad is in...
Traderjoe - great point in how the GDP approach paints a much rosier scenario. Deficit to Revenue slathers a much different picture.
I read the report.
Actually, the material is presented in the rosy language I have come to expect from the CBO. I would really like to see how they proof read this stuff before releasing to congress.
Just look at the revenue projections, they are always this highly smooth profile looking forward, but when we look at the past trends, it is not. Why should I trust their forcast?
As always the CBO report does not provide any in-depth analysis.
----------
A few points:
What new was said:
This is the first time the CBO has taken a strong stance on how debt can effect growth. This advice would have been helpful before incuring the debt. Missing is the actual effects this debt will have on the citizens, especially the poor and seniors.
The FED does not know how to tighten on MBS. Know one knows the effects on markets.
Essentially the CBO injected a huge disclaimer that, basically, their projections do not address global trends in credit or de-leveraging. They simply do not know what will happen.
----------
Not said:
The de-leveraging world does not have the capacity, and very soon the desire, to buy our debt with the deficit trends presented.
No discussion on interest rate sensitivity to churn concentration towards the short end of issuance.
GDP, in the presence of massive stimulus, cannot be used to predict trends in growth.
----------
The concept of generational discontinuity is a misnomer. The people that will pay for the actions of the politicians and the FED are the NOW generation.
Everyone will pay, either in lost benefits or higher taxes.
Mark Beck
From what I understand, this is repayment of the interest portion of the debt only. There is, and has never been, and probably never will be, any desire to pay down the principal. It's fairly easy to see that this will end badly, it's just a question of when and perhaps how.
The question, obviously, is "badly for whom?"
Uncle Sam will decide who takes the hit.
Logic and self-preservation would dictate that the banks suffer. But the perogatives of capital and the need to accumulate demands new blood, new wars, new plunder - so China probably gets hit.
Consequences be damned (especially if Apartheid Israel has begun killing Iranian babies).
"The retirement of the baby boom generation portends a significant and sustained increase in the share of the population receiving benefits from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid."
Baby Boomers? Has the Congressional Budget Office already forgotten the lowball $1 Trillion it calculated for Obamacare alone, a bill that must be paid over 10 years for an additional 32 million uninsured people, most of them from Mexico, adding 16 million people to the Medicaid roll and subsidizing private coverage for low- and middle-income people?
Joy and jubilation! “The Democrats hailed the votes as historic and a long overdue step forward in social justice, comparable to the establishment of Medicare and Social Security.”
Or, as South Carolina Representative Jame E. Clyburn put it: ‘This is the civil rights act of the 21st century.”
Hey, somebody’s got to pay for it.
http://blog.taragana.com/health/2010/03/22/us-congress-approves-historic-health-care-overhaul-bill-20739/
Remember this from CHEAP TOMATOES:
CHEAP LABOR? Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?
Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage.
Consumers don't want expensive produce.
Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs.
But the bottom line is cheap labor.
The phrase 'cheap labor' is a myth, a farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as 'cheap labor’.
Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or $6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an 'earned income credit' of up to $3,200 free (Update:The maximum EITC Benefit in 2009 for “2009 maximum eligible incomes and benefits” was $5,657.00 for “Three or More Qualifying Children; $5,028 for Two Qualifying Children; $3,043 for One Qualifying Child: and $457 for No Children.).
He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.
He qualifies for food stamps.
He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.
His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.
He requires bilingual teachers and books.
He qualifies for relief from high-energy bills.
If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI.
Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare.
All of this is at taxpayers’ expense.
He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners
insurance.
Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.
He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.
Cheap labor? I don't think so.
OMG: The Know-Nothing Party has returned.
AMAZING how not a peep is uttered here about the movement of CAPITAL, with it's tax evasion, free-trade plantations, and modern-day slave labor camps.
Nor does our Know-Nothing connect any of this to NAFTA, the CAPITALIST vehicle that has caused a refugee crisis by expropriating land from peasants.
Nope: none of that. Just a big, fat bigot from the nineteenth century.
The enemy stares you in the face whenever you turn on that idiot box, JR, and he's not a Mexican immigrant looking to feed her family.
Anyone familiar with North American labor and resource problems knows that the Mexican people crossing the border are not doing it because they would rather be in the United States than in Mexico. Because of the international bankers and the corporations who put a premium on low wages and low fringe benefits--who made a deal with Mexico’s and America’s corrupt governments--Mexicans are forced to leave a homeland and a culture that they love. Mexico is favored with abundant natural resources and willing labor and most any Mexican would rather have his culture, his friends and his community than to move into a new situation with a new language and new trials.
Unfortunately, for everyone involved, Mexican laborers are being used to force American workers to accept lower wages and/or unemployment, while America’s banker/corporation system begins to mirror Mexico’s corrupt government, both now using workers as pawns.
These international corporations could have gone to Mexico to develop a free enterprise system with an emphasis on freedom, instead they chose to put both America and Mexico and the world on the road to serfdom, rather than put all on America's old road to prosperity.
Zapatista leader Subcomandante Marcos in his essayThe Fourth World War Has Begun that originally appeared in Le Monde Diplomatique in September of 1997 documents the link between globalization and bank fraud, . Here is a brief excerpt from Marcos in an article on Zero Hedge by JS Kim:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/startling-link-between-globalisation-and-bank-fraud
Each day the big finance centres impose their laws on countries and groups of countries all around the world. They re-arrange and re-order the inhabitants of those countries. ...
The objective of neoliberalism’s migration policy is more to destabilise the world labour market than to put a brake on immigration. The fourth world war - with its mechanisms of destruction/depopulation and reconstruction/reorganisation - involves the displacement of millions of people Their destiny is to wander the world, carrying the burden of their nightmare with them, so as to constitute a threat to workers who have a job, a scapegoat designed to make people forget their bosses, and to provide a basis for the racism that neoliberalism provokes…
With the beginning of the fourth world war, organised crime has globalised its activities. The criminal organisations of five continents have taken on board the "spirit of world cooperation" and have joined together in order to participate in the conquest of new markets. They are investing in legal businesses, not only in order to launder dirty money, but in order to acquire capital for illegal operations. Their preferred activities are luxury property investment, the leisure industry, the media - and banking....
One of its first victims has been the national market. Rather like a bullet fired inside a concrete room, the war unleashed by neoliberalism ricochets and ends by wounding the person who fired it. One of the fundamental bases of the power of the modern capitalist state, the national market, is wiped out by the heavy artillery of the global finance economy. The new international capitalism renders national capitalism obsolete and effectively starves their public powers into extinction. The blow has been so brutal that sovereign states have lost the strength to defend their citizens’ interests. ...
There is a very large difference, which with your parasitic class-warfare Entitlement I'm sure you ignore purposefully, between a Mexican immigrant working his ass off to feed his family with his own earnings, and the illegal aliens who're here because a group of thug politicians told them they're Entitled to half a dozen subsidies and checks to live twice the lifestyle I do, paid for by taxing away half my paycheck.
No matter how many tired slogans from various authoritarian ideologies you drag out, it won't change the fact that every system based on everyone trying to steal from everyone else using omnipotent government as a weapon has been a miserable disaster.
It also won't change the fact that half of us are losing half what we work for to buy everything for a group of people paying nothing and consuming everything. No party rhetoric will ever make that system feasible, but keep cheering on the central planners.
When you find yourself living in a dysfunctional, overpopulated third world hell hole, that know-nothing will be proved right.
The chatter of how this is setting up is as loud as ever. The crooks (republican and democrat alike) are poised to steal the largest sum of money from our society ever in the history of the world. This really should be considered criminal.
Rise up America! You better get LOUD now because you will soon be too broke to do so.
> would reach 185 percent in 2035
Me ain't gonna be living in 2035. Me don't care. Me want to live in the present. More spending please. 2012 is the end.
These ridiculous debt projections years and even decades away are insane. The fiat world won't be around and in all probably ends later this year.
Well, is it sustainable now? What a bunch of freakin' idiots...
On May 4th I called the end of the March 2009 bear market rally.
The proprietary indicators I use in my technical analysis can identify trend changes before they occur.
http://stockmarket618.wordpress.com/about
ZERO HEDGE, sacred town crier for us all...many many thanks!!!!!
America-as-we-know-it simply doesn't have much longer.
The currency will inflate to collapse attempting to sustain an unsustainable debt load, exactly what Bernanke et. al. want, and frankly are growing a bit impatient about.
Reducing entitlements along the way merely postpones the collapse a bit longer.
Washington and the Fed have opposing desires. Washington wants to keep their comfy cushy government going. The Fed wants it to collapse.
Washington wants ever more debt financing so they can keep their comfy cushy government going. The Fed is more than happy to provide ever more debt financing.
The common theme of congressional legislation these days is (a) spend more money, and (b) channel it to politically connected people.
As long as more money is spent (and borrowed), Bernanke et. al. couldn't care less who it goes to.
The currency won't collapse from the inside. Washington would keep the game going until the currency is worthless, and continue right along as though everything is fine.
The currency will be collapsed from the outside when it is perceived to be approaching worthlessness. That's when Washington's game will be ended.
Getting sick of this f'ing shell game played at every level of government. Every government official from a Jr. Councilman to the POTUS know that when spending gets threatened the first card you whip out is the basic services cuts. Why is it that slashing the number of policemen, firemen, and teachers is the very first thing discussed when the gov'mnt feels pressured to reduce spending? Is it because everything else is so vital and there is absolutely no fat to cut anywhere else? No...it's because the typical dumbass visceral reaction is "We can't do that!".
These political assholes know the art of misdirection and sleight of hand. Only concern of the CBO is SS and Medicare? No other possible options to addressing the deficit other than to screw the innocent taxpayers that were forced to give the government extra money to 'hold' for them until retirement? Madoff has wet dreams about such schemes.
Reminds me of the joke Letterman told about running into a guy on the street of Las Vegas. The guy walked up and told Letterman that his wife was in the hospital and needed immediate surgery and if he didn't get the money she was going to die.
Letterman replied "That' horrible...but we're in Vegas and if I give you money how do I know you won't just gamble with it?"
To which the guy replied "Oh, I've got gambling money"
EURUSD buying support detected for some time now, has returned again and the daily chart is now neutral to bullish.
http://stockmarket618.wordpress.com/about
Certainly a lot of details like that to take into consideration. Thanks windows vps | cheap vps | cheap hosting | forex vps