That particular piece has circulated so widely (and is so wrong) that it's become a useful litmus test for whether someone's an idiot

haha you know I just read that because my mom posted it on facebook.

You wouldn't (probably would actually) believe how many times I've had to explain this or similar concepts at length. The ability of some people to comprehend anythiing is quite disturbing..

Fact: Annual deficit has declined every year under Obama. So this article is absolutely accurate.

Obama has no control over previous spending and the tax revenue issues he inherits. The issue is new spending, and Obama is the lowest since Eisenhower.

This isn't a good thing.

"The ability of some people to comprehend anythiing is quite disturbing.."

Yours in particular.

" Fact: Annual deficit has declined every year under Obama. So this article is absolutely accurate. "

This shouldn't surprise anybody, but this is factually wrong at the very basic level. The federal deficit in 2010 (under Obama) was $1294 billion. In 2011, it was $1300 billion. That was the last budget passed before the GOP took back Congress, and Putin is correct that it's gone down every year since then.

He's also correct that Obama's first deficit was lower than Bush's last, which was $1413 billion. That was the year of the bailout. The highest of Bush's previous deficits was $458 billion, which is lower than any of Obama's deficits.

Deficit in 2013 was half that of what it was in 2009. From 10.1% of GDP to 5.3% of GDP. Look at the deficit Bush inherited in 2001 and see where he ended up. If you want to make In 2002 Bush had a 159 billion deficit. He closed with a deficit of 1413 billion. Bush's deficit increased by 10x, Obama's shrunk by half.

Case closed.

You have to look at the situation inherited with revenues and spending. Presidents don't just bust in and have total control over all of this. The people who don't understand this article are not who you think.

I realize that, putin, and Bush absolutely deserves credit/censure for the spending from the war, which is to say, for getting the deficit to about half a trillion dollars. The bailout, however, was a one-time bill, not a baseline that had to be met in future years. Obama took care of hitting the trillion dollar mark three times all by himself.

Corporate tax revenues were down 56% and individual revenues down 22% as a result of the 2008 crash, while at the same time being in 2 wars and with the full force of the bush tax cuts in place. (The national debt was 11.5 trillion when Obama took over.) Anybody that didn't expect the national debt to rise significantly in those first years is well not thinking straight. The bailout was passed under Bush...btw.

The bank bailout, that is. If you were referring to the auto bailout, I apologize.

greysoni,

I know that the bailout was passed under Bush. My point is that this partially refutes Putin's claim that Obama had to maintain current spending levels, or at least start from them, and that therefore he couldn't have decreased Bush's deficit much. Bush's final deficit (by far his largest) included the bailout, which was NOT a regular part of the budget that had to be scheduled every year. (Unlike most parts of the budget, which do start at a baseline each year).

You're also correct that tax income did fall a lot (starting the year of Bush's big deficit). Nevertheless, there are major outlays one can point to under Obama as major contributors to his deficits (beyond just the rolling commitments of the past).

Instead of President Yellowjacket can we have President President Eden?

The most important number is the number of Americans with full-time jobs.

Well Putin considering that I actually didn't care enough to read the article and was actually talking about math and situations like this that people don't understand in general, I don't really consider that my comprehension is deficient in any way. Nice try though.

What I find politically interesting is how much the tea party is driven by ideology pushed by the Republican party for decades that they consistently betrayed and failed to deliver, namely fiscal responsibility. Whether you look at deficit growth or straight spending, Republican administrations look very bad.

Agreed, dirge. I think that's exactly why they're so strident about maintaining tight control over the party. There is very little trust in the GOP establishment for exactly this reason. Unfortunately, once they get that control, they don't always use it in very strategically effective manners.

"What I find politically interesting is how much the tea party is driven by ideology pushed by the Republican party for decades that they consistently betrayed and failed to deliver, namely fiscal responsibility."

The Tea Party is largely an insurrection against the Republican Party leadership. They are well aware of the fact that Republicans fail to deliver on promises - that's the whole reason the Tea Party exists right now, and the whole reason the Republican Establishment has been trying so hard to co-opt the movement (and is why there are so many different Tea Party organizations).

Yeah it's self evident. I'm just saying, about the Republican establishment that their strategy of claiming financial responsibility but delivering the opposite has seriously backfired. Now the right is hopelessly divided against itself.

Sadly the teaparty does not appear to have thought things out too far. If they are serious about balanced budget they need to think specifics. Hatred of healthcare isn't going to create a balanced budget. There is the Social Security problem -- how do you solve it? Bush the Second failed. What about the military budget. For some bizarre reason traditional conservatives seem to find the pentagon budget to be sacrosanct.