> The deficit only appeared to be going down because GDP was distorted by a massive asset bubble The deficit is defined as the difference between tax revenues

> The deficit only appeared to be going down because GDP was distorted by a massive asset bubble The deficit is defined as the difference between tax revenues and govt spending. Are you suggesting that tax revenues were inflated? > Right, because demand and thus growth are well known for immediately returning to their previous levels following a recession. A recession is defined as two or more consecutive quarters of 0 growth or contraction. The end of a recession is, by definition, a quarter of growth. We haven't had any contraction in the last year. However, growth after a recession is usually fairly vigorous and the growth after this recession has been pretty anemic. > And as I have observed elsewhere, doing absolutely nothing to trim its own spending. That's too kind - spending increased significantly under W. By previous standards, those increases were obscene. By current/Obama standards, the increases were modest. (FWIW, military spending as a fraction of govt spending continues to drop. We're way lower now than after vietnam, let alone during.) Much, but not all, of the W deficit came from Iraq and Afghanistan, which were/are winding down. However, W's deficits started dropping before then. They didn't explode again until the dems took congress. (Congressional repubs were a lame brake on W's spending tendencies. Congressional Dems were no brake at all - their complaint about the prescription drug benefit monstrosity was that it wasn't big enough.) I note that you think that W's spending is unreasonable but are happy with Obama spending far more. Curious. But I'll bite - what spending, other than Iraq and Afghanistan, would you have cut from W's term? I've mentioned one possible answer, the prescription drug plan. Or, is your only real complaint that W didn't collect enough tax revenue? The "outsource" story is cute, but irrelevant because increased tax rates don't decrease off-shoring. You forgot the other part - rich people are (potential) job creators. The middle class,not so much. The poor, almost not at all. Money goes to where it's welcome. I'd like that to be the US because there's a big benefit to having money around. You seem hung up on relative levels. I'm not. I don't care what you have. I care what I have. I'd much rather be poor in the US than in the middle almost anywhere else. How about you?