I largely supported the 2009 fiscal stimulus package for reasons outlined elsewhere, but felt that the whole conversation was a non-starter as it largely boiled down to which narrative you chose to believe.
That being said, the revelation in last week's USA Today that the leap in U.S. debt hits taxpayers with 12% more red ink forced one blogger (who shall remain nameless) to make a quick run to Walgreen's for some TUMS. But not for the reason you might think:
Taxpayers are on the hook for an extra $55,000 a household to cover rising federal commitments made just in the past year for retirement benefits, the national debt and other government promises, a USA TODAY analysis shows.Ha ha USA Today, you got me. 2008, that's crazy. Wait you're serious? But that means...
The 12% rise in red ink in 2008 stems from an explosion of federal borrowing during the recession, plus an aging population driving up the costs of Medicare and Social Security...
Now in all seriousness, I get the basic argument that during a time of intensely depressed demand, some form of fiscal stimulus (be it tax breaks or increased government spending) is needed, and that now may not be the best time to discuss cutting the budget. But I also understand that $547k per household is absolutely ridiculous. And with the bulk of the $787b stimulus plan still waiting to be spent and politicians of all stripes unwilling to seriously discuss budget cuts, I shudder to think about what this graphic will look like in the very near future.
My two cents, here's a great place to start.
Turns out things may be worse than I originally thought.