Kevin Gowen wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> Over how many years?
> >
> > Why is this relevant?
>
> It is quite relevent. There is a big difference between having a deficit of
> $44 trillion over one year or over ten years.

It's not a matter of over how many years, as with the Bush tax cuts. The
deficit figure itself is forecast at $44 trillion.

> > The US is not foreseen to pay off an ever
> > increasing debt, or to have more coming in than going out.
>
> Forever? Everyone says that the US will not have a budget surplus again?
> Wow.
>
> Now, tell us why this would be a bad thing.

It would erode confidence in the US economy or currency, if the US did such as
merely print out money, with detrimental effects on the US economy.

Can you explain why deficit would be a good thing?