[Will]

Umm... the Last paragraph is why I don't like Bush, not me just saying I don't like him. I thought Kerry would have kept up the deficits too, just not as huge as Bush is keeping them. Just about any other politician would have run up the debt as well.

I fail to see how my point in the first paragraph (that it would be a Good Thing(tm) to get the debt down to the point where it's 7%-12% of the annual budget from income tax, instead of 33%) is invalidated by me applying it to a specific politician. Would you have prefered that I apply it to Kerry instead, even though he lost and has almost no influence on budget issues now (except as a minority senator)? That doesn't do anything.

My second paragraph makes a very valid point as I see it. The law as it stands now says the Federal government cannot accumulate more than $7.4 trillion in debt. We now have $7.4 trillion in debt, and are spending more than we have every day. At some point, Bush either has to stop paying for things, or raise taxes, or (most likely option) he continues to screw over my and your generation by shifting the burden to us. There are estimates that take the average economic growth in the US over the past few decades, and extrapolate to several decades in the future, and the estimate is that the people just now about to enter the work force will be paying 75%+ of income in taxes, if government programs stay the same. Osama stated his goal is to bankrupt this country, and so far we're doing it. And, something has to break soon.

Tell me, what part of this is not valid? Because I certainly can't see it, even after putting my conservative blinders on.