If you mean "decrease of the [rate of] increase", yes - but that isn't what they're reporting.Three Valves wrote:You realize that a decrease of the increase is not an reduction overall, don't you?Donn wrote:Monthly Budget Review: Summary for Fiscal Year 2015
Congressional Budget Office wrote: In fiscal year 2015, which ended on September 30, the federal budget deficit totaled $439 billion—$44 billion less than the shortfall in 2014. Fiscal year 2015 was the sixth consecutive year in which the deficit declined as a share of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP). The deficit peaked at 9.8 percent of GDP in 2009; it fell to 2.8 percent in 2014 and to 2.5 percent in 2015.
Are you aware of any bounced checks from the federal government?I suppose if I was bouncing $500 checks all over town eight years ago but now I'm only bouncing $150 checks is an improvement...
One of the weaknesses of democracy is that, just as we may tend to elect the officials who we'd feel comfortable hanging out with at a backyard BBQ, likewise we tend to see government fiscal policy based on experience with household bank accounts. Economics at that level is hard stuff, I doubt that even 1% of the US population can sort these issues out and be reasonably confident someone isn't pulling the wool over our eyes, and even at that less-than-1% level you can't expect people to really agree.
My impression is that the main problem with budget deficits in recent history is our response to them (and by "we" I mean neoliberal national governments, driven by/appealing to popular sentiment.) "Austerity" measures in Europe recently showed what a bad idea that was during a recession.