My question however remains, why is this deficit worse than previous deficits?

No I don't and I don't think it is wise. My question however remains, why is this deficit worse than previous deficits?

Total debt as percentage of GDP has been higher than now, in the years around WWII, so it's not like this is an unprecedented mess.

The fact of the matter is, you guys like Romney over Obama, and that is why Obama deficits are worse than say Reagan deficits. It is not logic, but it is what it is.

Well, it's getting close to the end of the day here in Denmark, and I'm off to pick up the kids, so I'm stopping now.

Let's get to Sunday fast, so we can enjoy a good beating of the Bills.

Total debt as percentage of GDP has been higher than now, in the years around WWII, so it's not like this is an unprecedented mess.

In response to Neal Page's comment:

The EC is a brilliant system as is the entire structure of our government the founding fathers left us. It helps defend smaller population states from the larger ones. It is the same principle as the 2 senators per state no matter the population (and taken from that directly along with the reps who are assigned based on population).

If you went by popular vote, circumstances could arise where a total of 9 states could decide the election (the 9 largest states comprise a bit more than half the population). No 9 states could provide the 270 electoral votes to elect a President. Just because that isn't the current circumstance does not mean it could never happen.

See....

California has more people than the 21 least populated states combined. Of those 21 states 7 states have 3 EC votes, 5 have 4, 3 have 5, 6 have 6. That's 21 states with 92 total EC votes compared to California's 55 - though combined they have less population.

Because of this, you will never ever ever get 2/3 of the states to ratify an amendment to change to a strictly popular vote. They would be undermining their influence by a considerable degree.

I don't follow you around junior. You just post a lot of incorrect things.

In response to DanishPastry's comment:

No, this time it was a meltdown of the finansial sector. The alternative to the current deficit would have been no bailout of the financial sector, no stimulus package.

Somehow you only look at one side of the equation, and say holy cow, the (in)competence of the president is measured in the size of the public deficit, and this deficit is huge. He must be lousy. Do you understand what is has speen spent on? Or is that not important?

If the government hadn't spend a trillion dollars or whatever it was, the banks would have gone bankrupt, major companies would have gone bankrupt, most small businesses would have gone bankrupt, millions would have lost their insurances, unemployment would have been through the roof.

In response to tcal2-'s comment:

In response to DanishPastry's comment:

In response to TSWFAN's comment:

There isn't one.  It's not like it's Communism.

We won't see a lot of inventions or progressive business come from Socialist countries, but as a one dimensional society like they have in Scandanavial, or Canada for that matter, they seem to like it, so you labeling them or using that term as if it's some kind of a nasty illness is pointless.

If, over time, their people feel like it does suck and isn't working, they'll change and grow into more of a capitalist society. 

Running around calling people Socialists hoping it's seen as some nasty term is comical. It's what McCarthy did in the 1950s, hoping to have it scare people and vote Republican, so are you doing it?

McCarthy was a moron and is now mocked decades later with an embarrassed family, but you want to follow his lead?

As for answering Danish Pastry's question about the debt  being worse is because of Globalization and our own outsourcing.  Once the the chips started falling and business owners saw the benefits of outsourcing, increasing margins, the more their competitors would jump into it, say, the last 20 years.

We have more people in this country now with less available jobs which means less atx revenue for this country.   The world bank was moved here after World War I and it's not here anymore, so you can do the math.

Jobs that would be returned to in other recessions, say from 1979-1982 for example, would have employees getting jobs back while today, those jobs are fewer due to outsourcing/Globalization and its concepts, with the aftereffect felt here.

If we have less jobs available to be taxed here and more companies not setting up shope here, then there is less revenue coming in to balance a budget. It's pretty simple.

The context has changed.

In response to TSWFAN's comment:

There isn't one.  It's not like it's Communism.

We won't see a lot of inventions or progressive business come from Socialist countries, but as a one dimensional society like they have in Scandanavial, or Canada for that matter, they seem to like it, so you labeling them or using that term as if it's some kind of a nasty illness is pointless.

If, over time, their people feel like it does suck and isn't working, they'll change and grow into more of a capitalist society. 

Running around calling people Socialists hoping it's seen as some nasty term is comical. It's what McCarthy did in the 1950s, hoping to have it scare people and vote Republican, so are you doing it?

McCarthy was a moron and is now mocked decades later with an embarrassed family, but you want to follow his lead?

As for answering Danish Pastry's question about the debt  being worse is because of Globalization and our own outsourcing.  Once the the chips started falling and business owners saw the benefits of outsourcing, increasing margins, the more their competitors would jump into it, say, the last 20 years.

We have more people in this country now with less available jobs which means less atx revenue for this country.   The world bank was moved here after World War I and it's not here anymore, so you can do the math.

Jobs that would be returned to in other recessions, say from 1979-1982 for example, would have employees getting jobs back while today, those jobs are fewer due to outsourcing/Globalization and its concepts, with the aftereffect felt here.

If we have less jobs available to be taxed here and more companies not setting up shope here, then there is less revenue coming in to balance a budget. It's pretty simple.

The context has changed.

In response to Neal Page's comment:

I'm not sure I agree with the "not so inovative and progressive business"-notion - but maybe thats just me being a little blind to the negatives of my own society.

I agree with the reasons for the increacing deficit, and that this is a situation that isn't fixed easily. I just don't think it's fair to blame Obama for that - just as it wouldn't have been McCains' fault if he had won in'08. The structural problems in the economy are the same, be it a Democrat or a Republican in the White House.

And TSWFAN, I am really grateful for the Americans in WWII, no irony no sarcasm. Western Europe was saved by it. I just don't understand why me being a would have been German-speaking Socialist is relevant?

to paraphrase all of tswfan's comments: 'we must increase education spending at once!'