ravvt: Since you believe that Obama's budgets are "very constrained", maybe you can explain why there has been more than a doubling of the deficits under the Obama regime (8yr projection from the Obama budget) than under Bush or Reagan? ...goofy: Because revenues collapsed, not because spending increased.… clearly you’re not paying attention. The deficit number I posted for BO is an 8 yr average, i.e. it takes into account the collapsed revenues near the financial crisis but it also includes the wet dream revenue stream that a 5 & 6% growth rate would deliver. Those growth rates and the financial benefits that would flow from them were so laughable that not a single Democrat in either house of congress would vote for this budget farce.Are you getting the drift yet?ravvt: ... and why do you think the bond market will continue to buy US Treasuries in light of the reckless spending projected in Obama's budget?goofy: Because bond holders are more concerned with a return OF principal than a return ON principal.… Urkel and Helicopter Ben would be happy to return the principal in devalued dollars! A hedge fund manager recently quoted a senior official in Obama’s Treasury: “We’re going to kill the dollar!” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeIFcuVTS3USo those bond holders can get their principal back as long as they don’t mind the loss in purchasing power that the returned capital would provide.Are you getting the drift yet?ravvt: ... or do you want Helicopter Ben to continue monetizing the debt & debasing the currency via his QE4EVER program? goofy: Ah yes, that "debasing of currency" that's being flogged so relentlessly on all the Right Wing Nutter sites. That's probably why interest rates continue to be at historic lows (as opposed to what bond holders would demand if the risk were high).… you are really putting your ignorance of the monetary system and the role that the Fed plays in setting interest rates on display with that answer.Because the Fed is purchasing $85Billion / month of Treasuries and mortgage backed securities, the net effect on short and long term interest rates is an unnatural reduction to historic low values. In 2012, the Fed purchased 70% of all Treasuries sold by the gov’t … that’s known as monetizing the debt … … who the hell does Ben think will buy those bonds in the future when they’re not willing to buy them today. And why does he think he will ever be able to sell those mortgage backed securities that were the toxic waste of the Wall Street banks. The banks couldn’t sell them to anyone … except the Fed. Surely, there is a massive loss in the future for that portion of the Fed balance sheet. Are you getting the drift yet?goofy: Oh, and as for your chart. Nice that you include the effects of the Bush years collapse NOT in Bush's numbers, but in Obama's numbers. I wonder if you would do the same if the guy who followed Bush had been that Republican McCain guy? (Answer: of course not. You'd still be blaming Barney Frank for all of it.) … the Bush numbers include 2001 – 2009 deficits … so they include the $770Billion TARP program …BO’s numbers include 2010 – 2012 actuals (“stimulus spending” & return to all of the welfare programs that Clinton reduced in the ‘90s) and his administration’s projection for deficits and taxes for 2013 – 2017. Obama’s future deficit numbers are large because he’s planning them to be … not because they are being influenced by Bush’s numbers… Are you getting the drift yet?