Let's see: the Bush years (for which feckless Democrats must be held equally accountable as those in power) went from a budget surplus to 200B deficits. And what we got out of it was a war planned for nearly a decade by those who had an interest in pursuing it, justified by knowingly false evidence, and which killed a few hundred thousand innocent civilians. Yeah, I have a problem with that.

No one is pleased with the current projected deficits. But at least we are getting something positive out of it. We will be more secure because we will be less dependent on imported oil. We will have strengthened the infrastructure of the country, and we will have helped protect those who would otherwise have been harmed by economic forces beyond their control. The first two are directly related to future benefits; the third relates to our ability to live with ourselves if we failed to help those in need. And yes, it will hurt to pay it back. But sometimes doing the right thing hurts, and that's OK.

Hank

\>It is not the economics in this issue. If you want real economics them I kindly advise you to look at deficit budget projections for the next 10 years prepared by current administration (naturally, they have vested interest to show these projections in diminished way). Do you prefer to ignore reality of $2T (trillions) deficit this year and multi-trillion deficit for next decade? Certainly, it is better just to look at Netherlands and keep going, though, it might be, that you were highly disturbed by huge (200B/year, 10 times lower than current/projects) deficits from Bush years.
>
>>Countries like The Netherlands have a high quality of health, and spend 40% less than we do on healthcare. There's your economics.
>>
>>Hank
>>