Most corporations do the same thing when their bonds mature. If you're going to claim that this is bad practice, then most of the banking industry should be shot.

I'm not singling this out to be nit picky, I just don't think there's much to which I ought respond in the rest of the post as it's either obvious facts, or faulty conclusions.

col you are a lying political hack. The man will be leaving office in two years and you are still working hard to un-elect him. If you are truly interested in this country you would be rooting for the next leader of the nation instead of crying about losing twice in a row.

Paladin77

First you do not know what you are talking about. The analysis I pointed to was from the Comptroller General (Head of the GAO if you do not know who that is). His data clearly shows that the added revenue produced by the tax cuts does NOT equal the LOST revenue from the tax cuts.

The consequences of Bush and his policies will NOT END on January 20, 2009. For example, the added debt will not go away when Bush leaves office but will remain for future Presidents and Congresses to fix. It is more likely then not the next President will be handed a continuing war in Iraq. Every time you submit a post you demonstrate your ignorance. We need to remove Bush and Cheney from office NOW so the solutions to the problems they and the GOP in Congress created over the past 6 years can be corrected!

I guess you do not like the comments from GAO about the Bush policies!

I don't have a problem with what he said. He stated his opinion based on what those experts told him. on the other hand did he list the other experts that disagreed with his point of view?

Read my post on how the deficit is shrinking. You see not everyone involved in the process agrees with your guy.

Paaladin77

The ANNUAL Budget Deficit is lower. That is the amount we will ADD to the TOTAL National Debt that we have amassed. The TIOTAL continues to increase at a slower rate. The issue is that when Bush took over the TOTAL debt was $5.7 Trillion and is now just short of $9 Trillion and CONTINUES to increase. Bush NEVER balances the budget just says he will lower the amount of debt we add each year. The issue is simple and even you should be able to grasp it. If we agree to spend $2.9 Trillion next year then we must TAX $2.9 Trillion.

Daiwa

I give you evidence from the most knowledgeable and authoritative sources that clearly shows that the policies we are following are not solving the countries’ problems and are taking us into a very difficult future. We are financing about 20% of every dollar we spend to operate the federal Government with debt. If you as an individual did that you would be bankrupt in a short time. Since 1981, without offsetting the Surplus from Social Security and Medicare ($ 200 Billion per year) the ONLY year we had a balanced budget was 2000. What I am saying and what the Comptroller General is saying is that our fiscal policy is wrong and dangerous. At some point our children will be saddled with all the debt we are creating by refusing to pay for what we are spending. NOTHING anyone has posted refutes that fact!!!!!

The problem with that is when it was tried by President Carter the nation went into a tail spin. In four years of his mismanagement we became a debtor nation for the first time since the Civil war. What saved us was Ronald Reagan with his tax cuts that he got the Democrat controlled congress to allow. The lower rates allowed people to invest more money into their business and invest in other businesses, this caused a growth spirt that brought the nation back on its feet. Later we raised taxes twice and the economy began to sink again. History proves each time we have lowered taxes the treasury gets more money and when we raise taxes teh treasury takes in less money. FDR did it, JFK did it, Ronald Reagan did it, and GWB did it. Each time the nation prospered. LBJ raised taxes, so did Jimmy Carter.

Show me where in our history raising taxes helped the nation.

Clearly we don't because we regularly spend more than we take in.

You keep saying "we must" as if you insisting on it will make it true.

I would like to see the government not have deficit spending. But because I know math, and you don't, I also recognize that the easiest, least painful way to do it is to simply decrease the rate we increase spending until we have a surplus. 

Wheras you would raise taxes on people like me without really caring whether that would create a surplus because, after all, why should you care? It's not your money.

You left out the little part about cutting spending as well. Both were required in ordder to bring the budget into balance.

Again gene: The facts say otherwise:

Look at the 1980 to 1986 graph. The spending just kept going up and up.

I'm really trying to understand your point of view.  You really think that if the government spends more than it is bringing in that the answer is to give it more money? When history shows that when they get more money, they simply spend it even faster?

Do you really think that if we raised taxes the budget would get balanced? Really? You don't think they'd just spend more on other things?

We agree: People/companies shouldn't make a habit of spending more than they make.

But in reality, they do, all the time.

The typical American has more debt per their income than the government makes.

For example, it's normal for someone to have a mortage that is 4 or 5 times what they make in a given year.  Throw in credit card debt and the typical American carries a much greater debt load per income than the federal government does.

Many companies are the same way.  You may have heard that XM Radio and Sirius are trying to merge. They've got something like $14 billion in debt between them. That's far more than their income.

Personally, I don't like debt.  But you can't say that the government is being run much differently than most citizens or many businesses.

It's not pork or other incidentals causing the deficits. It's increased spending on "entitlements". And I object to entitlements.  You will never convince me that I should pay more in taxes so that someone else can have more free stuff. 

I would rather have huge federal debt than pay higher taxes as long as the federal spending is mostly going to redistribution of wealth.

Clearly we don't have to.  You say "Must" and put it in bold as if there will be dire consequences if we don't.   Unless the government controls its spending, interest on the debt will make up larger and larger percentages of the budget.  But you assume that people like me care about that. 

The people who produce stuff in this country don't need the federal government.  My family doesn't need anything that the federal government is providing. Nothing whatsoever.  Our roads, schools, police, you name it are all handled by the state which is doing just fine.  

So that we understand each other: Even if the federal budget was 100% dedicated to paying off the debt, it would make relatively little difference in the daily lives of people who aren't mooching off the government.  The only thing that it would affect that I care about is the military. Everything else could just go away for all I care. (that's an oversimplification, there's a tiny % used for maintaining the federal courts and the FBI and what not but you get the idea)

Dragional

The Bottom line is that that the increase in federal spending you and other conservatives complain about is the result of the Fiscal policy that you support which started with Reagan and that GWB Repeated. That policy has increased annual spending on interest by $400 BILLION Dollars per year since 1980. If we had not allowed the deficit to grow, we would be very close to9 a balanced budget today. Cliff Notes Version-- Conservative Fiscal Policies had increased government spending!