Politicians who talk about "deficit reduction" are not, to co-opt one of the commentariat's favorite terms, serious, nor should they be taken seriously.
That is, when some yahoo presidential candidate is asked to address the issue of the US government's debt and his plan goes something like "right now, the US government spends a LOT more than it takes in each year; elect me, and by the end of my second term eight years from now, it will only be spending a LITTLE more than it takes in each year," you should scratch him or her off your list of serious applicants for the job (if you feel a need to fill the job in the first place; I don't).
The very first element of addressing the issue of the US government's debt is either abolishing the government or balancing the government's budget from here on out, and either repudiating the government's current debt or building debt service that actually reduces the principal into that balanced budget.
I'm all for, and all about, abolition/repudiation. Those who claim not to be need to quit fucking around and prove it. At 235 years, the United States of America is not a startup that needs some time to work its way into profitability. It fancies itself a going concern. And a going concern cannot spend more than it takes in in perpetuity.