When Obama talks about cutting the national deficit in half by the end of his first term?
Is he talking about the deficit from the years prior to this years' deficit? Or is he talking about this years' deficit? If he's talking about this years' deficit, then wouldn't that mean it would still be higher than any year Bush was in office? And speaking of cutting national deficits in half, isn't he going the opposite direction so far?
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
"Deficit" refers just to the difference between how much money the government receives in taxes and how much it spends on programs in one given year. The "debt" refers to all the cash America owes because of the many years its government ran a deficit.
So if he halves the deficit (I believe he was using 2008 as a reference point), then it will definitely be smaller than at least some of the Bush deficits; however, the debt will be larger since we'll be borrowing more money in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
It's a very unfortunate state of affairs, but halving the deficit in four years is going to be a challenging goal to meet in and of itself. This year's budget will have a massive deficit because of the stimulus, but most of the programs created in it will expire by 2012 and won't thus be paid for, and a lot of the taxes will either either expire or be rolled back as part of an effort to start cutting the deficit.
It would be nice to stop adding to our national debt, but the goal is actually a good starting point.
- rinaldoLv 44 years ago
no. because of the fact the $739 billion in fee reductions you noted grew to become into all placed in the direction of the restoration Act that are actually not portion of you numbers because of the fact purely approximately seventy 5 billion of that grew to become into spent on 2009. The restoration Act is almost impossible to track because of the fact it went to districts that did no longer even exist and on commonly used democratic districts have been given over two times the stimulus funds as antagonistic to republican leaning districts, and Obama's spending is almost impossible to track because of the fact diverse this is one government enterprise borrowing from yet another. __________________________ those info won't even look correct when you realize that over 8 years Bush purely racked up 3.3 trillion, even utilising your very own deceitful numbers approximately 4 trillion over 8 YEARS, if Obama grew to become into to stay in place of work for 8 years, which he would, yet in all probability no longer, the deficit would be 7.6 TRILLION, and with interest you are able to desire to be speaking approximately greater that 8 TRILLION in deficits, upload that to our thirteen TRILLION national debt suitable now, and you have have been given an over 21 TRILLION national deficit. while in comparison with all of that Bush's 3.3 Trillion deficit, which some million trillion would be owed to the Democratic Congress of 2006-2008, sounds like fairly even a chunk of straw on the Camel's back