End these ridiculous Bush tax cuts.

Well, I don't know that voters would notice a decrease in the deficit. Here's another question, though, if Obama increased troops in Afghanistan, would C&L notice that?

I kid - I'm sure somebody's already putting together something on it, but it seems we're a bit behind on the posting.

The deficit? Doesn't matter as long as the rich get what they want.

Barrack Obama

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Right okay Barry. Whats your point?

The deficit is just a wedge issue. There was absolutely no concern by these idiots about the deficit during either the Reagan or Bush years, when these two Presidents increased it to record levels. Where were the idiots when Bush took the public debt from 4 trillion to 8 trillion, during a supposive period of economic prosperity? During good times you are suppose to reduce the debt not increase it. Republicans just spend spend spend like crazy to keep the good times rolling. Through history Democrats have proven over and over again to be the most fiscally disciplined and the Republicans the most irresponsible. The deficit that Obama is currently having to deal with was 100% created by the Republicans and Bush. Period and end of story.

And don't expect the MSM to remind the public of the contribution to the debt made by the Bush tax cuts, and especially their impact (if they stay) on the debt in the future - check the graph:

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/born-again...

all credit to the obama WH, they are talking more and more about further job-creation efforts.

“But, having said that, what I emphasize today is we cannot sit back and be satisfied, given the extraordinarily high unemployment levels that we’ve seen,” Obama said. “We have only taken the first step in curing our economy and making sure that it is moving on the right track.”

we desperately need another stimulus aimed directly at job creation, not wall st/bank bonuses (thanks bush). and, of course, the rightwing is going to try to disguise themselves as economic wisemen and claim that any further spending will destroy the country's economy, and thus the country.

and, like most things coming from the rightwing, that isn't very accurate.

Relative to the size of the economy, the deficits that we are running are large and the debt that we are projected to incur is substantial, but the deficit level is still not coming close to the levels hit in World War II. Nor is the debt level projected to reach post-war peaks or the levels sustained by countries like Italy and Japan. The idea that we are near some debt-driven crisis is absurd on its face.

The United States had the strongest period of growth in its history in the three decades following World War II. This undeniable fact should put to rest the idea that our debt levels will threaten the prosperity of future generations. We hand our children a whole economy and society. If we give them a bad education, a decayed infrastructure, a ruined environment, then we will be jeopardizing our children's economic well-being. However, the debt levels we are currently projecting aren't even large enough to make it to the list of serious problems. -- Dean Baker

Most economists I talk to believe that the big risk to recovery comes from the inadequacy of government efforts: the stimulus was too small, and it will fade out next year, while high unemployment is undermining both consumer and business confidence. -- P Krugman

the hemorrhaging of living wage jobs, their will be nobody left to pay taxes to reduce the deficit

the debt is nobodies prime issue. if it was people wouldn't have elected bush twice. even the first time. considering the vast improvement clinton was on the deficit, you'd figure the american people would stick with a democrat for prez. but nope.

The R's run up the deficit

The D's get into office and are blamed for it

The D's try to be fiscally responsibile and the R's take credit for being fiscal conservatives.

and on and on

Now we are facing those pesky interest payments for Busheney spending - so that is Obama's fault too!

All the Reslug media owners would lie as usual and report the opposite, especially Faux Noise.

He states:

"Ask any of your friends that are deficit scolds this simple question. How is the deficit hurting their life? Ask them to give you real examples. They can't. It's fiction created by Grover Norquist and his conservatives cronies to tear down anything that has to do with the left. I'm not dismissing the deficit, but it's beyond belief the nonsense America believes about it."

This argument is silly for at least two reasons. First, he spent several paragraphs arguing that Americans don't understand that Clinton actually reduced deficit spending. If that's true -- and frankly, I agree that most Americans have virtually no understanding of the history and impact of debts and deficits -- then why would on earth would you ask those same Americans to explain how the deficit hurts their lives, and then suggest that their inability articulate any harm means no harm exists? That's dumb. Second, just because most Americans can't articulate how excessive debt and deficits are harmful doesn't mean that excessive debt and deficits aren't harmful. As a point of fact, the problems with excessive deficits and the resulting debt are several and obvious, and include: (i) inflationary pressure, increased taxes, less money available for discretionary spending, more competition for scarce capital to invest, etc. Applied to the little guy, these problems might mean that grandma's retirement is less secure, or interest rates on loans to invest in a start up business are too high to justify the investment thus stifling employment, etc.

Amato attempts to circumvent the very real problem of excessive spending by stating that he's "not dismissing the deficit." Yeah, he is -- he states in the preceding sentence that the problem of deficits is a "fiction created by Grover Norquist and his conservatives cronies to tear down anything that has to do with the left." But the problem of deficits isn't the fiction -- the fiction is Norquist, et al.'s argument that taxes should be cut to rein in what he considers excessive spending, and their attempt to foist responsibility for our debt on Democrats.

Deficit spending has its place. Frankly, when you're in a recession, like we now are, government spending is essential to buying the country out of the private sector's unwillingness to spend. But excessive deficit spending is equally pernicious. Assuming it's all a political construct is fiscally irresponsible.

Conservatives believe the government shouldn't tax, but typically, when you mention cutting some of the big money programs (typically defense programs) in order to reduce the deficit, they won't. Medicare is now one of those programs they'll toss money into in order to keep their main constituency (the elderly) happy and they'll ignore the deficit. They did the same for the Star Wars program during the Reagan years and the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars during the Bush years. You can't increase government spending and decrease taxes if you give a damn about deficits. So Conservatives that believe Clinton, who created budge surpluses (and yes, after Republicans had control of congress and the White House and decimated the surplus - CLINTON created the surplus), didn't create them and made the deficit worse.

Liberals believe apparently that budget deficits don't matter to regular people - they do. Considering the value of the dollar on the world market goes down as we print more money (ballooning the debt), our dollars will begin to buy less and less of stuff - especially the stuff we import. Currency follows the same basic supply and demand economics principles. Deficits do matter. While I understand the desire to do things that people need done (like health care for all, etc.), we do need to care about the debt and deficits.

My problem is that NO ONE seems to want to touch the main elephant in the budget room - Defense spending. We don't need soldiers in 130+ (or whatever) countries in the world. No one will mention the fact that MAYBE right now exploring the depths of space should be slowed down until we are able to feed and take care of the problems here on planet Earth. Yes, I like to learn things, but spending millions on a robot that is stuck on Mars for a long, long time right now should be a lower priority. Cut a total of $100 Billion from these 2 things and we should be able to cover the cost of health care and keep the budget in good shape... also, reraise the taxes on the rich. They want to horde money and not carry out the trickle down theory, so let's put that to rest.