My friend and fond interlocutor, A.I. has this to say about my previous Fiscal Madhouse post:

If being conservative has some connection with being Republican and managing debt is supposed to be the forte of both, history doesn't bear that out. Here are the stats on public debt under Republican and Democratic administrations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms. They may just indicate Republicans have borrowed attempting to buy prosperity while Democrats have borrowed to build self-sustaining economies. I'm not sure if that is a thought or liberal regurgitation, but it will have to do for now.

I think that rather proves my point. The nation is driving toward a fiscal precipice, Thelma and Louise style, and A.I. want to argue about whose fault it is. Maybe we should figure out where the breaks are first?

Not to doubt Wikipedia, I went to the CBO. Here is an interesting chart..

This presents Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP. Now look at the two dotted lines on the right of the chart. Those are two projections of the debt into the future. Both see the public debt climbing with time. That means that no one in Congress or the White House has any plans for reducing the public debt or halting its growth up to at least 2035.

But also notice that one line is a lot more alarming that the other. If it is what happens , then public debt will approach 200% of the GDP in about 30 years.  Two hundred percent.

Now: what's the difference between the two. The lower line represents what happens if Congress keeps all the promises it is making or has made in the past to cut spending in the future. The latter shows what happens if Congress instead behaves like it has always behaved.

For example, suppose Medicare reimbursements to physicians are cut as current law requires? That, among other provisions in current law, gives you the lower line. But suppose Congress continues to wave the cuts, as it has always done in the past? That gives you the upper line.

Well, what did the Senate just do? While the Baucus plan projects the cuts that have never happened yet in order to appear fiscally sound, Senator Debbie Stabenow was busy restoring the money in a separate bill.

So you tell me which line is the realistic one. This is five kinds of crackers.  Is there any realistic way of paying this down without a major blow to American prosperity?  I doubt it.  But right now neither the Congress nor the White House are paying the slightest attention.