(continued from http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=160476&postcount=95) Deficit spending at times is reasonable. But there are two problems with the way the deficit spending that is currently going on. 1) It has become excessive. Just like an private business owner, when outstanding debt becomes too high it becomes impossible to run a successful business. The same is true of a national economy. 2) What the credit is being spent on. The debt is being incurred to pump up the economy through buying, not through capital investment. It is not making the country more productive - it is just providing short term relief and an increase in consumer spending and debt loading. Some deficit spending makes sense, but there should be a reasonable expectation that the spending will increase productivity, and it should never go beyond what we can reasonably expect to pay off in less than 20 years of boon economy. The economy does not appear to be growing much at all. We appear to be looking at 2.8% real growth for 2004, and estimates for 2005 appear to be for a 3.2% real growth rate. And both figures are based upon very low inflation figures which do not consider increases in the cost of food or oil. This will be the 3rd year in a row that the inflation figures factor out increases in the cost of food, but when something is consistent for 3 years, it is ridiculous to factor it out as "temporary". And while I agree oil prices should drop, I do not believe they will drop back down to sub $30/barrel prices anytime soon. There has been serious inflation that is not being counted. Realistically we can expect at best a 12-15% growth rate over the next 4 years, including oil and food and everything. If we continue as we have been, we will be looking at a 36-48% increase in the debt over this same period. Can you restate this question more clearly please? Really? I've never seen it "Hammered down" one penny. Point this out please: 09/20/2004 $7,359,800,524,277.00 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16 09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06 09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00 Am I missing something? I sure don't see any year where the debt was less than the year before. Here's the breakdown of the current national debt: Borrowing by the General Fund $ 7,359,800,524,277 From all Gov. Trust Funds etc. $ 3,035,034,127,222 (From the Social Security Trust $ 1,666,630,801,222) From the Public $ 4,324,766,397,055 Interest on the debt this year will be ~$309 Billion. The treasury department estimate for the 2004 debt in 2000 was ~$6 trillion, we will exceed that by over 20%. Yes but there has to be some reason to it, and it has to be productive. Right now it is neither. Right now the debt to GDP load is about the same as it was at the peak of the recession of the early 90's, but this recession is far from over. There is no plan to curb deficit spending any time soon. Furthermore, the Social Security trust fund, which had been largely treated as a hands off item in the past, has been severely raided to finance this recovery. Given that baby boomers are starting to hit retirement, that fund cannot be allowed to float as debt forever like so many other funds have in the past. I never said I was happy about it. When the Chinese and other Asian and European countries loose faith and stop financing our debt based spending it is going to be painful for everyone. It can be. But not when what is going on is people are borrowing to buy frivolous items rather than investing in economic growth. We have never seen such cheap money before. This "growth" is different than growth of the past, it is not based upon investment, it's based upon buying. The American public is being encouraged to borrow at low interest rates and go out and buy new cars, homes, clothing, electronics, etc... not to invest in capital equipment, profitable real-estate, etc. We don't get out of a recession in the long run if the jobs being created are sales clerk positions at Walmart selling consumer goods to to other clerks spending cheap credit. It makes the economy look good, but it is not sustainable. When the cheap credit dries up, or the borrowers have maxed themselves out, those jobs disappear and all that's left is a lot of unemployed people with maxed out credit that they cannot pay back. So it is your contention that it is perfectly fine for people to increase their debt from 60% to 80% vs. their current income knowing full well that income will increase by, at most, 5% because they can somehow manage to make the interest payment? Just how many times have you declared bankruptcy Comrade? The Bush administration and the Republicans know exactly what they are doing and the long-term consequences. Why do you think they are so focused on changing personal bankruptcy laws so that individuals cannot escape bad debts? I suggest you study up on HR 975, which basically denies the individual the right to effectively declare bankruptcy in most circumstances. Corporate bankruptcy however, is basically unchanged. This is in preparation for what they know is coming - massive individual defaults on outstanding debts. The problem is that this "recovery" is not really a recovery at all. It's just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. The Bush administration, Republican party, and Alan Greenspan are running a pyramid scheme on the American public and that house of cards always collapses when it reaches critical mass with those at the top getting rich and everyone else loosing their shirts. Wade.