Hereís take two, Iíve come at it from a different angle and tried to remove references to specific figures.
The article claims that the Deficit is bigger under Obama than itís ever been. To work out if thatís true you need to define what the deficit actually is, the problem is that there are more ways to work it out than there are economists telling you how to do it. The standard definition is that itís the difference between whatís budgeted to be spent and revenue Ė whatís earned, does that sound about right? Youíd think so, but youíd be wrong. You see thereís a whole heap of spending thatís classified as Ďoff-budgetí, that doesnít mean itís not spent, itís simply not calculated in some versions of the deficit that get put out by economists. What you end up with is a whole bunch of differing figures that purport to be Ďthe deficití, some donít include the off-budget figures, some include some of them and almost none include all of them.
Thatís really handy to know if you want to make an administration look bad or good, you can pick a low deficit figure for your own guy and a really high one for the poor beggar youíre attacking. Thatís what the article did, it compared apples with oranges and end up with a melon.
Fortunately thereís a really easy way to work out the true spending deficit Ė including all off-budget items and compare apples with apples. All you need to do is look at the national debt figure year on year, if you take the 2009 national debt figure from the national debt figure for 2008 you get the total debt - the real deficit figure - that was added in 2009. You can do that for any year you like and when you do itís clear that Bush and Reagan added more debt (had bigger real deficits) than Obama has so far accrued.
I hope that explains my point a little better Denise, and I apologise for making a hash of explaining it earlier.