The deficit is going down, bbauska.

The debt is going up Danivon...

danivon wrote:The deficit is going down, bbauska.

I will mark you down for a nothing, then.

danivon wrote:The deficit is going down, bbauska.

It would have taken some genuine effort to make the deficit go up . . . again.

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:The deficit is going down, bbauska.

I will mark you down for a nothing, then.

Why? Clearly something has happened to start reducing the deficit.

You are not going to start getting debt down without first addressing the deficit, and it will take more time than you seem to think.

bbauska

More taxes cannot be accepted without more budget cuts. Both sides expect the other to bear the brunt. Won't happen. What realistic approach is possible at this time?

Side question: Why did the politicians accept the sequester if it is SOOOO bad for America

The notion that there are "two sides" is at the heart of the inability to take truly effective action.
The inability to recognize that revenue/spending and economic growth are all tied in together and that they can't be addressed as segregated components contributes to the simplistic debate. (Thank you Tom for illustrating this in particularly mindless fashion.)
And simplistic debate (two sides, us or them) is what the American political system and the approach to reportage in American media are all about ....

I'm not sure why the sequester was accepted by republicans. Presumably because they saw it as a win.? I can see why Obama accepted it. There will be a mixed bag of results from the sequestration. On the one hand the deficit will be positively affected by reduced spending.
On the other hand people will be negatively affected .Those negatively affected will probably blame republican intransigence (at least this is Dems hope, and not an unreasonable hope) for the damage. And the next date at the polls .... how will they vote?

The nature of the American political system is probably at the heart of the problem B. When the ability to actually control the legislative system is so limited...(by the need for control of the WH, and two houses, and for the Senate to a artifically high and undemocratic level) there is a genuine need for compromise and accomodation. When one of the two parties has been hijacked by an extreme group who will not compromise ....you end up with sequestration....
And with sequestration some very bad decisions, like cutting funding for science when there are reasonable cuts that could be arrived at that would harm few... (ethanol subsidies being a prime example)
The one benefit of a parliamentary system where majorities do actually rule...at least for 4 years, is that an agenda can be enacted and given a chance....And corrected by an election if it doesn't work, like say austerity hasn't worked in the UK) Right now, the impasse in the US means nothing more than muddling through and endless political posturing.