>>>>For the benefit of lurkers, AEI = American Enterprise Institute --- hardly a dispassionate source.
>>>
>>>Ok, if you are going to question the 'source' of the information, then at least post a link from a reliable contradicting source. Do you have evidence or a reliable (more?) source that contradicts that information?
>>
>>It's not so much a matter of accuracy as interpretation. There is an unspoken assumption in that link -- entirely predictable from the AEI -- that deficits of this magnitude are by definition a Terrible Thing. Well, it's a terrible situation the administration, the Treasury, and the Fed are trying to address. These are not normal times economically and I'm not sure it's correct to judge attempted remedies in normal terms.
>>
>>I wonder what their remedy is. More cuts in non-defense spending and more tax cuts for the rich? Maybe this time it really will trickle down, right? (You may recognize this line from "Rocky and Bullwinkle": "Again? That trick never works!")
>
>I would like to concentrate on your argument that "these are not normal times economically" so big deficit could be justified. Try to look at the following logical construction.
>Obama administration plans 1750B deficit for year 2010 (next year, not this one) on assumption that recession ends this year and economic recovery will be in full swing in 2010. It means that 1750B number is planned for the year when economic times are supposed, by the same plan, to be not just normal, but better than normal, i.e. economy is supposed to be in growth mode. Think about this for few minutes at least before jumping up with emotional response.

I am not going to jump up with an emotional response or any other kind of response. The positions are already pretty clear here.