Maybe what people are really trying to say is that the "stimulus" money keeps going to the wealthy instead of to direct job creation for everyone else. This would lead people to approve of Obama (he is at least trying to do something) but disapprove of his handling of the economy and the deficit spending in its current form.

would ever have had any buyers.

is paying people (the creditors and bondholders of large banks) to make bad investments.

The economic rate of return for that isn't so great. Neither is paying people to blow things up and get blow up in wars in central Asia. The money spent on those things could be better spent elsewhere (or not at all).

There'd be a lot less deficit if Obama didn't continue the TARP policies and wars of the Bush administration.

Most assessments of sustainable or acceptable spending levels usually have to do with what percent of your GDP your debt is.

During the Bush administration our Debt was high, but using this formula theoretically acceptable. However, it is arguable that our GDP, which was heavily inflated by our financial sector has been falsely large since the 1980's.

In that scenerio our overall debt might be an acceptable percentage of recognized GDP, but our GDP may be grossly over estimated. Since the meltdown it's value may have crashed along with our improbable banking structure.

In this scenerio the stop gap (on borrowed money) to shore up our broken banks, and as a result our GDP is just another new coat for the Emporer.

If our GDP number is false, then our continued borrowing against it is fraudulent, and as with any fraudulent scheme, will eventually collapse.

The U.S. does not need to be the Ottoman empire, and the world does not need the hyper inflation that resulted when it finally collapsed.

Essentially, it can be argued that the world has agreed to go along with our wacky "shore up the banks" scheme with "fake money" but they will only do so, if we work to stabelzie our own economy. If we continueto borrow money we don't have against a GDP that no longer exists, eventually the rest of the world will stop throwing good money after bad and the entire ponzi scheme collapses.

Of course, the counter argument no doubt whispered in the halls of power around the world is that the U.S. is too big to fail. If the U.S. collapse leads to a world wide collapse, inclusive of china and russia and all of europe, it might be in the interest of the rest of the world to keep on with the charade and comment on how lovely our new coat looks with the rest of the ensamble.

I clearly recall hearing Obama speak during his first visit to Portland. (Oregon) He stated that he would, in part, pay for his programs through the savings that would ensue from getting our troops out of Iraq.

We're still waiting for that saving strategy to be put into effect.

That would be nice, but no it isn't. It is too heavily in debt to fail too rapidly - that would serve neither our creditors nor our taxpayers.

I am pretty sure that everyone with substantial dollar holdings is spending much of their spare time thinking about how to unwind that without too much pain. Given enough time, they'll figure it out. Look at Treasury yields; its already begun.

If the US fails to balance our budget, there will be hell to pay within 10 years. Eventually, some part of the world economy will recover with or without us and that will end our ability to borrow in our own currency at favorable terms despite having no clear plan (except vague ideas of future gorwth) to repay our debt.

Why weren't these people complaining about the deficit for the past 8 years. Bush started his presidency with a massive budget surplus and he left office with the largest budget deficit in history.

The difference between now and the Great Depression is not only that we have been deficit-spending at 1933 levels since the '80s, but also that the deficit is now financed by foreign investors. When the US sold bonds to Americans, we were essentially spending our nation's own savings to break the paradox of thrift that had our economy stuck in neutral. When we're spending China's money to deficit spend, we are weakening our country.

Most journalists do not understand economics. Most of the ones I went to school with flunked their required econ. course at least once, and when they passed it was with a grade of D.

So how can we expect the media to correctly explain economics to the masses?

re: Individual Americans, by and large, are hacking away at their credit card debt, cutting back on spending, and saving at rates not witnessed in over a decade.

So, naturally, they would expect the same from their government.

Most Americans, of course, have no idea how our debt-based monetary system works, or the fact that the banksters rule our government and the dollar they print up by the bazillions is just a piece of paper that we, being in the catbird seat, can shove down the throats of the rest of the world. They don't understand that our money isn't even money -- it's DEBT.

Money As Debt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544

They assume money is "real" -- because it certainly is in their own day-to-day existence. Spending money they don't have isn't an option, and going further into CC debt has only lead them to ruin.

"So is this a case of absorbing the message while dismissing the messenger?"

Nah. It's not the Republicans people are listening to, it's the newscasters, and those guys treat every utterance as "equally sane" whether it comes from Rush Limbaugh or Charlie Manson.

The entertainment-industrial-complex is in as much trouble (or more) as anyone else in the US right now, and it's critical for them to prevent folks from questioning the wisdom of a government that prioritizes big-business interests above the citizenry or the common good.

If more "media figures" would step out of character for a moment on-air and say something sincere, they could make a difference. But it's not so likely, as they currently have jobs, and that's the kind of virtuous act that's predictably bad for one's career.

As for why folks weren't deficit hawks during Dubya's tenure--it's largely because the costs of the war were never part of the budget. The deficit was being reported (for YEARS) as if the war we had started did not EXIST.

That meant the billions paid to Halliburton wasn't "deficit spending." The billions MISPLACED in Baghdad wasn't "deficit spending."

Now that Obama's decided to include that spending in the budget, it sure looks like the deficit just soared overnight--at least to all the folks who had jobs a year ago and weren't paying much attention to what our government was DOING.

The biggest contributor (I think) here is the general apathy of the voting public. Neither party has demonstrated an ability or desire to improve the day-to-day lives of the poor and working classes, which now comprise about 90% of the population. So most people just don't CARE who is in office or whatever so'n'so is saying about this or that. It's all just a bunch of hot air.

The "message" that everything our politicians say and do is worthless speechifying and corrupt self-enrichment is one that STRONGLY benefits the capital-controlling big-business elites.

If "the masses" aren't paying attention to, say, a bill to deregulate the California electricity market, it's a pretty enormous opportunity for an entrepreneur to step in and steal a few billion dollars from the state government.

And what happens next? A know-nothing right-winger steps into a political race with an understanding of the issues as deep as a kiddie-pool, tells people the problem is taxation, and he WINS.

Hah! Suckers! How'd those tax cuts work out over there?

Lay's widow is still sleeping on silk sheets, and as long as our government can keep her there, all is right and good.