Ken wrote:

> As to the government, what can be found on the asset side of their
> balance sheet which might match its ballooning financial liabilities?

Indeed. I wonder how someone of Kevin's eclectic diet of media sources,
would miss something as obvious as this:

Washington shelved report of 44-trillion-dollar deficit
Thu May 29, 8:53 AM ET

LONDON (AFP) - In the midst of negotiating a steep tax cuts package, the
US government shelved a report that showed the United States faces future
federal budget deficits of more than 44.2 trillion dollars.

[snip]

"It estimates that closing the gap would require the equivalent of an
immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase,"
the Financial Times said.

[snip]

That is correct: the *government sponsored* study found that a massive,
immediate AND permanent tax increase was necessary, kind of like how I
should vastly increase my own income if I plan on deliberately putting
myself and my family more deeply into debt with no foreseeable way out.

I wonder what Bush or any of his successors intends to do about a 44
TRILLION dollar deficit, if they do not come up with a way to pay it off
or reverse the trend.

> If there's nothing wrong with deficit spending, why impose limits on
> it at all?  Heck, why shouldn't the government have an annual budget
> of, say, 300%, or 70000%, or 987654321% of the country's annual GDP,
> and flood the citizen's pockets with money?
>
> Anyway, the latest US statistics indicate an average household saving
> rate of about 1%, which is a POSITIVE figure.  "Most people" engage
> in "deficit spending"?  In GowenWorld, perhaps, but not in the US of A,
> or in Japan, or in the EU for that matter...