>"So [government] spending [in 2010] was $186 billion higher than if we'd stuck to the [2000-2007] trend, and revenue was $681 billion lower. In other words, th

>"So [government] spending [in 2010] was $186 billion higher than if we'd stuck to the [2000-2007] trend, and revenue was $681 billion lower. In other words, the giant deficit is mainly the result of the collapse in tax receipts brought on by the recession, not the increase in spending. Nice to know, huh?" --Justin Fox This one seems a little misleading. Fox is comparing 2010 spending vs. revenue to the 2000-2007 trend, but spending far outpaced revenue in this period. When revenue dropped in the recession, he points to that and says, "see, it's a revenue problem." But even if revenues somehow hadn't dropped dramatically during the recession and the trend continued, the federal government would still be spending much more than it is taking in. That seems to me more indicative of a spending problem.