actually, deficit and debt might as well be the same. Having a deficit means you are in debt. An accumulated deficit over several years is referred to as the government debt.

No, if the government makes more than it spends, it reduces the debt. In other words, the deficit is current spending while the debt is money that we owe from the past. Moreover, if we reduce the debt with surpluses, the interest that we pay on it decreases, causing the cycle to move in a positive rather than a negative direction.

Not necessarily. If the surplus is saved by the gov. or given back to the people as tax breaks, then the debt remains. The debt is only removed when we pay the people to whom we owe, back the money.

No. A deficit occurs when you spend more money than you take in. The debt is the difference between the two, aka, debt.

Thats why the budget deficit is the difference between the amount the gov. spent and how much it took in.
And why the trade deficit is the difference between imports and exports.

Yes, if the government spends a surplus or gives it to taxpayers in rebates the debt does not decrease, but I advocate using surpluses to pay off the debt. The debt is not the difference between spending and revenue in our current economy, it is the accumulation of past deficits (spending/revenue in years past) not yet paid.

actually, when we use the term, the deficit, deficit refers to the total yearly deficits put together. Thats why when we say that the current budget deficit is XXX, we mean that XXX is the total sum of the all the deficits from the years that we had deficits

Perhaps the word deficit has an alternate meaning, put in common parlance it refers to the amount of spending over revenue in a given fiscal year.

Congraduation, you have doomed america to becoming a corporate runned economy. By eliminating Tarriffs you have ruined many of American industries. Privativing social security has been tried in England and was a failure. You have also cutting alot of funding by not taxing industries that generate alot of tax

__________________
In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is the king
- Nas

As I wrote earlier, I don't like being right-wing in any way, but I have to follow my reasoning wherever it leads me without allowing my emotional tendencies to interfere.

Facts are facts. Or as Ayn Rand said, A is A. Period. It's not about emotion or politics or parties.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

It sounds like a recipe for disaster- maiming in the name of ideology. Observe-I am not emotional-I shall cut off my legs! Since $11,000 does not begin to be enough money to pay for health insurance along with the other requirements of living, the first thing that would happen is that hospitals, nursing homes and physicians would have a choice : refuse care or face bankruptcy. The system would be overwhelmed. Forget about caring for 1 pound preemies or the Terry Schiavos of the world. Pull the plug. Charity care is actively sought after and already insufficient for the need.

The wealthy can always move money and assets around the world, set up bank accounts in the Caymans etc. If the currency loses value or interest rates soar ,they can position themselves to minimize risk and take advantage of adversity. Taxes and financial risk would fall most heavily on the middle class. W/O a middle class able to spend , spend, spend, the entire economy collapses. How do you like the living standards of ,say, Argentina?