There was never a debate (in the press, DC...) about whether or not to reduce the deficit -- the starting point was always just HOW to reduce it, never why or if.

So the whole discussion is based on the false premise that we need to be "slashing the deficit" immediately.

Nobody talks about jobs, or the ruined middle class, or the raging inequality.

And now our most vulnerable, the seniors depending on SS, are facing a cut by Obama and the Democrats as their STARTING POINT for a BUDGET PLAN.

This is totally absurd. And I'm curious how the Medicare cuts are going to fall -- hurting the usurious providers or the benefits?

It looks to me as though real output is back to a normal growth path after having nominal values inflated for many years... "artificially manufactured" if you will.

Here is a graph of real output returning to a normal growth path.
http://effectivedemand.typepad.com/ed/2013/04/back-to-reality-potential-real-gdp.html

If you want to earn a dollar, someone else must spend a dollar. A +1 on your balance sheet must be balanced by a -1 on someone else's balance sheet. If the non-govt sector as a whole wishes to put more +1's than -1's on its balance sheet (as is the presently the case), then the govt sector MUST put more -1's than +1's on its balance sheet. Govt deficit is non-govt surplus. It's literally as simple as 1 - 1 = 0. For the private sector's current savings desire, the budget deficit is too small... I can barely watch tv, they're all idiots that don't get arithmetic.

Government spending on goods and services is about 17% of GDP. Taxes are about 18% of GDP. There are transfers of about 7% of GDP, covered by borrowing (future taxes)....I still get confused why macroeconomists who should no better confuse spending and transfers. And of course newborn Ricardian Krugman today says that debt has no impact if we owe it to ourselves! My how things change.