I think that line is a reference to the proposed $4 trillion reduction in the deficit over the next 10 years. Or whatever it is.
Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel
This (the "proposal," not NSD's posting of it) of course is b.s. on so many levels.
Not to mention reflects the overall inability/unwillingness of people to think carefully when big numbers are used.
1. Deficit is defined as the excess of spending over revenues over a given year.
2. National debt is the accumulated deficits from all years.
3. Every year #1 > 0, #2 increases.
So called plans to "reduce the deficit" over X years usually end up being "well, we're going to run smaller deficits in (some) of the next ten years than those we are ran last year.
Reducing the "deficit" only slows the increase of the national debt.
So, suppose this year's deficit is 1.5 billion, and that current plans (i.e., before the "proposal") are to run the same amount every year for the next ten years.
Reduce each of those annual deficits by 400 billion. (to get the 4 trillion "reduction").
What does the national debt look like 10 years hence?
It's merely another 11 trillion bigger than it is now. (instead of the 15 million it would be without the proposal).
This is NOT a commitment to improving the financial condition of the country. It's just another con job.
Now, I suppose we could assume that its just a case of our "leaders" saying "deficit" when they meant "national debt". But I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't seen ANY politician that has seriously proposed running enough budget surpluses in the next ten years to reduce the national debt by 4 trillion.
Well, other than Ron Paul, perhaps. And we know how few people think his proposals are "realistic."
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)