Lol @ "desperate". If the debt-load is a problem, then small steps to reducing it, which deficit reductions reflect, are good.
Sure, in a "good vs. bad" black/white sense, yeah. Just like a 500lb fat guy losing half a pound by switching to diet Mountain Dew.
Sure, in a "good vs. bad" black/white sense, yeah. Just like a 500lb fat guy losing half a pound by switching to diet Mountain Dew in order to stave off diabetes.
Actually, research does indicate that weight reduction for the obese (not merely overweight) is more important than the means to that weight reduction.
Losing a half pound when you weight 500 is not losing weight in any other than the absolute literal definition. The whole concept of "materiality" is lost on you, apparently.
Everytime we've made significant progress in reducing the debt its been primarily via economic growth...not by raising taxes or reducing spending, although those could have some peripheral effect. Everything Obama has done has slowed growth. Coming off the worst recession in nearly 100 years we should have had multiple years of +5%- +%8 GDP growth. Instead we've topped out at 3%+/-. The fact the deficit is coming down is simply reversion to the mean. It sure as hell isn't policy driven. To trumpet this as some significant sea change is like saying "well, before I was drowning in 15 ft of water, now I'm only drowning in 13 ft of water".
Cue Ricter's response: "Research has shown that receding water levels are just as important to not drowning as getting out of the water." Or some other stupid shit.
I presume this is simply the function of the Fed buying up pretty much all the agency MBS out there? Otherwise, I don't really get this chart. If this is, in fact, a function of QE, it's certainly not sustainable, but, as we know, QE is ending. The real issue here is the GSE reform (dismantling of Fannie and Freddie), which I am extremely skeptical about, given how much fast money out there is seeking to derail it.