Yay Debt! [Archive]

Lemur

04-27-2006, 21:19

The newest numbers are out, and boy are they stunning (http://www.gao.gov/cghome/whitehousewalker1205/img5.html). $23 trillion of debt racked up in the course of five years. Amazing, just amazing. George W. Bush -- we will be forever in his debt.

I want everyone who voted for this debt monkey to line up for a hearty slapping. You know you deserve it, so stop grumbling.

P.S.: You would think we would have had more fun wasting $23 trillion dollars. I mean, there should have been some good parties or something.

yesdachi

04-27-2006, 21:25

You weren’t invited to the parties?

Lemur

04-27-2006, 21:37

{Lemur considers the sort of party you could get for $23 trillion. Lemur salivates.}

Kralizec

04-27-2006, 21:43

You weren’t invited to the parties?

:laugh4:

+1

Avicenna

04-27-2006, 21:58

Ice

04-27-2006, 22:14

Well, blame that on the Bush voters. How exactly did he manage that anyway? If I spent money for six years myself I don't think I'd manage to waste even a single trillion, let alone 23. By the way, is this several times more than the cost of the whole of WWII?

U.S. spent the most money on the war, an estimated $341 billion, including $50 billion for lend-lease supplies, of which $31 billion went to Britain, $11 billion to the Soviet Union, $5 billion to China, and $3 billion to 35 other countries. Germany was next, with $272 billion; followed by the Soviet Union, $192 billion; and then Britain, $120 billion; Italy, $94 billion; and Japan, $56 billion. Except for the U.S., however, and some of the less militarily active Allies, the money spent does not come close to being the war's true cost. The Soviet government has calculated that the USSR lost 30 percent of its national wealth, while Nazi exactions and looting were of incalculable amounts in the occupied countries. The full cost to Japan has been estimated at $562 billion. In Germany, bombing and shelling had produced 4 billion cu m (5 billion cu yd) of rubble.

http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/WWII.html

The value of currency has changed, though, so I really don't know what that is equivalent of this is today.

Alexanderofmacedon

04-27-2006, 22:23

http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/WWII.html

The value of currency has changed, though, so I really don't know what that is equivalent of this is today.

Not 23 trillion...

Yeah, whoever voted for Bush. I hope you're happy.:shame:

BUT, even though I'm a liberal I'll say this:

Democrats who voted to go to war instead of staying out are to blame too. Idiots.:shame:

Lemur

04-27-2006, 22:34

Your question intrigues me, so I'll take a stab. From what I'm reading, the total cost of WWII is estimated to be $1 trillion in 1944 dollars. Using the first inflation calculator (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/) I could find, that translates into $93.6 trillion. So George "debt monkey" W. Bush has successfully spent about 1/3rd of the total global cost of WWII in adjusted dollars.

Problems with this exercise -- the $1 trillion figure is hard to substantiate. It's a global figure, rather than the U.S.'s cost. I have no way of confirming if the inflation calculator that I used was any good. Still and all, a fun little game with numbers.

[edit]

Just saw the $341 billion figure for U.S. expenditures up above. Using that number, we can peg the cost of WWII in 2005 dollars at $31.9 trillion. So the Republican debt machine has racked up 72.1% of the cost of WWII in five years. It's impressive no matter how you look at it.

Ice

04-27-2006, 22:44

Not 23 trillion...

Yeah, whoever voted for Bush. I hope you're happy.:shame:

BUT, even though I'm a liberal I'll say this:

Democrats who voted to go to war instead of staying out are to blame too. Idiots.:shame:

Yeah, because Johnny boy was just so much better.

Lemur

04-27-2006, 22:52

Yeah, because Johnny boy was just so much better.
Johnny boy and Congress would have hated each other. There would have been gridlock -- beautiful, gorgeous gridlock. Our overlords would have spent more energy on fighting each other and trying to out-patriot the other guy. They would have had commensurately less time available to raid the public piggy bank.

You bet your Bush-loving hiney Johnny would have been better. Divided government is always better.

Does any Republican have a better defense than "His abysmal record is better than his opponent's hypothetical one"?

Goofball

04-27-2006, 22:55

Yeah, because Johnny boy was just so much better.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

You win the prize!

I knew it would be only a matter of time before somebody threw that old chestnut out...

You can say whatever you want about how bad Kerry might have been. But it's still only might have been. We know beyond any doubt how bad Bush really is, and those of us who have been telling you this since before you elected him (twice, for the love of God!) are now well within our rights to point out to you what a poor democratic choice you made.

Deal with it, my little frozen treat...

:oops:

Ice

04-27-2006, 23:29

To all you right wing haters out there, this must be a shock to you, but I don't particulary like Bush. I do think though, he was a better choice then Kerry. I just didn't like anything about that man. I also dont really see how a gridlock in government does any good. Sure nothing bad can happen, but nothing good can either.

Crazed Rabbit

04-27-2006, 23:36

Does any Republican have a better defense than "His abysmal record is better than his opponent's hypothetical one"?

Um....no. But the hypothetical record is pretty bad, hypothetically!

Sure nothing bad can happen, but nothing good can either.

"Good things Government has Done" There's a short book.

I think a certain someone needs to hold off a bit with saying the USA made a poor democratic choice. When the election happened, we just had hypotheticals (I don't think Bush was throwing as much money away then, and besides, if he got reelected, he wouldn't need to sign any pork bills, would he?) It's hardly fair to use the advantage of hindsight.

Bush was the better of a poor twosome.

Crazed Rabbit

Ice

04-27-2006, 23:43

"Good things Government has Done" There's a short book.

I think a certain someone needs to hold off a bit with saying the USA made a poor democratic choice.

What are u talking about? That was a general statement I made, it meant nothing about the current state of government.

Alexanderofmacedon

04-28-2006, 00:00

Crazed Rabbit

04-28-2006, 00:00

Well, I'm talking about the whole of American history and how the government is best when it stays the heck out of your business.

Crazed Rabbit

Goofball

04-28-2006, 00:04

Um....no. But the hypothetical record is pretty bad, hypothetically!

"Good things Government has Done" There's a short book.

I think a certain someone needs to hold off a bit with saying the USA made a poor democratic choice.

I didn't say the USA made a poor democratic choice. I said those who supported Bush made a poor democratice choice. That would mean slightly more than 50% of American voters the second time, and slightly less than 50% the first time.

It's only half of you that made a poor choice.

You just have to take it like a man CR. When your guy wins then ends up doing a terrible job, then the rest of us who never liked him in the first place and didn't support him get to say "I told you so."

When the election happened, we just had hypotheticals (I don't think Bush was throwing as much money away then, and besides, if he got reelected, he wouldn't need to sign any pork bills, would he?) It's hardly fair to use the advantage of hindsight.

But that is what an "I told you so" is all about:

Party A: "Don't do X, it will have consequences A, B, and C."

Party B: "I am going to do X, because I do not believe you are right about consequences A, B, and C. In fact, I think doing X will actually have benefits H, I, and J."

*Party B does X, and it has not only consequenses A, B, and C, but D, E and F as well*

Party A: *does happy dance and gloats* "I told you so. You should have listened to me."

Don't worry CR. I completely understand why you are not fully up to speed on the proper deployment of the "I told you so." IIRC, you aren't married yet, are you?

~D

solypsist

04-28-2006, 00:46

the debt clock here in nyc is about to run out of digits

http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060327-062904-1451r

Byzantine Prince

04-28-2006, 00:54

I just knew crazed conservatives would come here defending this US administration's insanity. :wall: :no: :shame:

Alexander the Pretty Good

04-28-2006, 02:01

I only dodged Lemur's threatened slapping because I was too young to vote. :help: :sweatdrop:

Reverend Joe

04-28-2006, 04:26

I voted for Kerry because I did not know the name of the socialist candidate, so I could not write him in. :embarassed: I will never make that mistake again.

"Don't blame me- I didn't vote for either one!" :laugh4:

Joker85

04-28-2006, 04:48

I actually voted for Kerry. Before I voted against him.

Papewaio

04-28-2006, 05:05

Interest on 23 Trillion per year at 5% = 1 trillion = 1000 billion = 1000,000,000,000

http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/

NASA's yearly budget is 16 billion and will be 18 billion by 2010.

Imagine how much they could do with just the interest on the interest of the 23 trillion.

From: The NASA Trust
To: NASA.

Dear NASA,

We were endowned with 1000 billion. Due to our inept ability with handling money we will put it in a long term deposit that will create (CPI + 5)% managed by a fund manager.

We will add an additional funding to NASA per annum of 50 billion. This will automatically inflate at the CPI index. Sorry that with out incompetent handling of money we are only able to create this small amount to the 1 trillion seed capital.

Yours Truly,

The NASA Trust.

Trustee's can be contacted at the first year Finance School

Xiahou

04-28-2006, 05:30

oops- n'mind. :wink:

KafirChobee

04-28-2006, 05:39

The last figure I heard was that we (USA) are $8.3trillion in debt (of course that was a few weeks ago, and the growth rate of our debt is increadible - is why Hu visited, Bush needed some walking around money - j/k). Further, had we stayed the course of Clinton (that dirty BJ loving bastard), we would now be $1.5trillion in debt and have an entirely balanced budget by the end of the Bush's term. Not that it matters to conservatives any more, or to anyone actually - because it looks an aweful lot like an $11-14trillion one - without one possitive social program.

What now matters to conservatives (it seems) is that their guy is in office - what he does with it is immaterial as long as he continues to make the wealthy ... well, wealthier. Debt is something to be left to the next generation (s). Debt is no longer our concern, as are the social problems, educational supplements for the disadvantaged, aid to the poor, assisting those without health insurance, or securing the health and welfare for our elderly - or making sure that a family in the middle-class can survives a catastophic health calamity (like the bread-winner getting sick). Instead, we have government programs that now ensure that debts be paid - that we haven't re-established "poor farms" is only a matter of time under the present rules for personal debt.

Had someone told my GrandDad that a Republican would triple the national debt (as Regan, "our greatest president" according to a "Times" poll - spell Rupert, please), and that another would triple that? He'ld have kicked their arse for being so stupid - he was a devoted GOP'er (my other GD was at the other end of the stick - that's the end I held on to, I suppose). Point is, when supporting "your man" (Bush) is more important than maintaining your principles, economic beliefs, political ideals, and conceptual rules of government - then you lose. No one else does, because you gave up your ideals to support someone that does not support yours. It is that simple.

Defending someone that sold you out? Go ahead, loyalty is a beautiful thing - for the person doing the selling.

Crazed Rabbit

04-28-2006, 05:48

You just have to take it like a man CR. When your guy wins then ends up doing a terrible job, then the rest of us who never liked him in the first place and didn't support him get to say "I told you so."

Don't worry CR. I completely understand why you are not fully up to speed on the proper deployment of the "I told you so." IIRC, you aren't married yet, are you?

~D

I know, I know. We deserve the 'I told you so.' (Well, not me- I was too young to vote- yippee...?) Anyways, that doesn't mean Kerry would've been better. Harumph.

I voted for Kerry because I did not know the name of the socialist candidate, so I could not write him in.
Do you vote socialist because of their great track record worldwide, or what they've done to the USA? :no:

Crazed Rabbit

Zalmoxis

04-28-2006, 06:02

That's all depressing, but if I had 23 trillion dollars, I'd throw a party with a mountain of crack this high! coughplagiarisedcough

KafirChobee

04-28-2006, 07:04

I know, I know. We deserve the 'I told you so.' (Well, not me- I was too young to vote- yippee...?) Anyways, that doesn't mean Kerry would've been better. Harumph. Crazed Rabbit

POINT IS, ANYONE WOULD HAVE DONE BETTER - anyone would have upheld the princliples of conservativism better than Bushy's team. That you are a little kid that couldn't vote, or a person that swallowed their father's ideas hook, line and sinker - without questioning them? Well, congrats. You win, the prize for gullabilty. That you continue to support the failed policies of Bushy? Well, hopefully, you still can't vote. And, if you can? Maybe at some stage you will actually vote for those that support the ideals you expound, versus the words you want to hear.

Say anything, to gain power! Is that your belief? Is life so simple that if the political party one wants to believe in wins, then breaks every principle of that partys' beliefs - it is OK, because the "party" won. Even though your party continues to break every principle it has expounded since the early 1900's. Well, seems about right to me, for GOP'ers. Maybe why I am a Democrat - they screw up, but never leave their basic principles of social justice, racial equality, educational rights, progressive legislation and ideals of equal opportunity for all. [Whoa, did we change or what from 1930-to the present?]

Then again, maybe your right. That Socialistic ideals are pucky, because man is not born equal - and that the wealthy must remain wealthy regardless of the cost to the many - the fews interests are more important than the manys' (excuse the language, please - phraseology). That is what you are saying? No?

AntiochusIII

04-28-2006, 07:19

POINT IS, ANYONE WOULD HAVE DONE BETTERNot really. The point is. Kerry was never in: any claims either way are not proven. Therefore, the argument that "Kerry would've been worse" doesn't work.

I'm wondering how the USA would manage to get out of the debt. Certainly, a business being in debt is nothing new--many businessmen even viewed it as positive, with different justifications ranging from normal business activities to sheer unscrupulous manipulation of the oh-so fair systems of America--but a country being in debt is dangerous, especially being indebted to its greatest rivals.

I mean, you guys cry everyday that Mexicans/Muslim radicals/Gays/Abortionists (a term I've coined, right here, right now!) are threatening our national sovereignty/morality/etc. and yet this debt is not?

Obviously this is the new world and the way things are run will be different, but I don't think this is the right way. Quite the opposite. :shame:

Sjakihata

04-28-2006, 07:46

It's hardly fair to use the advantage of hindsight.

Hah! Hindsight! Hah!

As far as I recall, I and a few others on the org have been warning about Bush before he got appointed (not elected) the first time. That's hardly hindsight.

Xiahou

04-28-2006, 09:38

Defending someone that sold you out? Go ahead, loyalty is a beautiful thing - for the person doing the selling.
I voted for Bush because Kerry was a clueless waffler on just about every issue- most important of which was foreign policy (he voted for it before he voted against it).

Bush is a terrible spender and a poor conservative. But the argument that Clinton would've had us out of debt is ludicrous- the economy was already in recession by the time he left office and it was further deepened by 9/11. Deficit spending was unavoidable. One could quibble about who would've spent more- but to say Clinton would've eliminated our debt flies in the face of reality.

It's an unfortunate conundrum really. It seems the majority of Republicans in congress are now only cosmetically different from big-spending Democrats. Apparently, any party in power automatically becomes big spenders as they try to pander and buy votes with new spending.

Tribesman

04-28-2006, 10:05

Major Robert Dump

04-28-2006, 10:10

Listening to all you babies talk about who you voted or didn't vote for brings back memories of another thread where folks whined that if elections were more open and available to the public or publicly funded we would get too many Tom Dick and Harrys on the ballot. Well guess what? It would be better than the lesser-of-the-two evils syndrome that is repeated every four years. WAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!

BigTex

04-28-2006, 12:25

The 8 trillion debt is insane. IMO congress needs to reign in their spending and stop the ridiculous pork spending. If we alone cut out the pork spending and all the "special favors" for previous business partners I'd bet that the debt would be halved :idea2: . But then again with multi billionaires getting away with paying under 100$'s in taxes I doubt well ever see the end of this debt. Someone needs to reign in congresses spending and soon.:help:

Avicenna

04-28-2006, 14:13

Bigtex: twenty three trillion in debt (or 22.9 if you want to be accurate).

BigTex

04-28-2006, 14:17

Bigtex: twenty three trillion in debt (or 22.9 if you want to be accurate).

Its 8 trillion now, 23 trillion is an estimate that includes future costs of medicare and other social programs. So both are right.

Xiahou

04-28-2006, 15:41

most important of which was foreign policy (he voted for it before he voted against it).

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Oh that is a classic in this thread .
Now that vote Xiahou , you know the one where he voted for it before voting against it , that change in vote was down to an amendment that restructured the spending to increase the debt wasn't it .
So you are against Kerry because he voted against increasing the national debt :dizzy2:
Yay Debt !
I dont have a problem with increased military spending associated with our troops deployed in Iraq. Regardless of what someone's opinion is on the decision to invade, we're there and we need to fund our troops so that they're able to do their jobs. It's new entitlements and pork spending that's the most agregious. And again, as I said, there was going to be deficit spending no matter who was elected- that was unavoidable. The problem is with just how much deficit spending there is.

Kerry voted against funding the troops in Iraq after he had previously authorized their use to overthrow Saddam- it was blatant political pandering. He waffled on his pro-war decision, then voted against funding the troops and then in a sadly comical attempt at having it both ways claimed to have 'voted for it before he voted against it' when asked about his vote to withhold funding.

I dont like what Bush is doing, but sorry Lemur, I dont regret voting for him over Kerry.

Don Corleone

04-28-2006, 15:57

It's funny how we've managed to get through 36 posts, and one of the real culprits, Medicare Part D hasn't raised it's ugly head, aka The Pharmaceutical and Insurance Companies Profit Enhancement Act. Bush isn't a poor conservative, he's NOT a conservative in any fiscal sense of the word.

I am ashamed that I voted for Bush. Not because I should have voted for Kerry (try all you want to spin it, Tribesman, the Democrats ran a forked-tongue candidate who forgot not to go on record with his double-talk). But I should have had the balls to vote libertarian, and I'm lining up for the whacking Lemur so correctly pointed out I deserve.

Xiahou

04-28-2006, 16:15

I am ashamed that I voted for Bush. Not because I should have voted for Kerry (try all you want to spin it, Tribesman, the Democrats ran a forked-tongue candidate who forgot not to go on record with his double-talk). But I should have had the balls to vote libertarian, and I'm lining up for the whacking Lemur so correctly pointed out I deserve.
Not I. Were it not for Iraq and 9/11, I would've happily thrown away my vote on a libertarian protest against Bush. Unfortunately, that wasnt the situation and I wasnt about to let my vote be partially responsible for putting someone like Kerry in office. I would've preferred to vote 3rd party instead of holding my nose and voting for Bush, but the risk was too great.

Republicans are likely to take a much deserved beating in the upcoming elections. While not likely to lose their majority, they have sold out their base and their ideals and are in severe need of a wakeup call. Unfortunately, Im afraid any losses will be interpretted as a result of not enough pork and pandering rather than too much. :no:

Lemur

04-28-2006, 16:35

Im afraid any losses will be interpretted as a result of not enough pork and pandering rather than too much.
Wow. That's the most frightening thing I've read in ages. Please, don't let it be true.

And Don C, yeah, the Medicare prescription entitlement makes me want to howl at the moon. Once you give old people an entitlement, you can never, ever take it away. As Chuck Heston says when he runs into lady liberty in Planet of the Apes: "You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! Damn you all to hell!" (http://mattsbits.com/damnyou.wav)

Tribesman

04-28-2006, 16:35

Kerry voted against funding the troops in Iraq after he had previously authorized their use to overthrow Saddam- it was blatant political pandering. He waffled on his pro-war decision, then voted against funding the troops and then in a sadly comical attempt at having it both ways claimed to have 'voted for it before he voted against it' when asked about his vote to withhold funding.

You have a problem with Kerry , fair enough , he is a dickhead just like Bush , but don't try and rewrite history Xiahou , he changed his vote on the funding bill when the amendment was made to the bill which changed the source of the money .

doc_bean

04-28-2006, 16:36

I would've preferred to vote 3rd party instead of holding my nose and voting for Bush, but the risk was too great.

And this mentallity is why you get stuck choosing the lesser evil.

drone

04-28-2006, 16:53

Fortunately, I live in Virginia, where I knew that my protest Libertarian vote would have no effect on who won the state. :2thumbsup:

I just hope the backlash from this administration doesn't result in the Dems taking both Congress and the White House. Gridlock is good.

Xiahou

04-28-2006, 19:01

And this mentallity is why you get stuck choosing the lesser evil.
Kinda sad isnt it? :embarassed:

Wow. That's the most frightening thing I've read in ages. Please, don't let it be true.I hope not too- but it really makes you wonder when the few small government GOP members left in the House are being derided as the "Minority Party*" by their other GOP comrades. :no:

*In reference to the idea that if their policies were implemented they'd be a minority party again.

SomeNick

04-30-2006, 01:17

It's hilarious and yet very criminal how a goverment can get YOU into debt after you pay all your bills and taxes (giving them money to misuse horribly!?!?!?!) by yourself with YOUR OWN money.

I wouldn't vote for that puppet monkey again if I lived in the USA.

Banquo's Ghost

04-30-2006, 08:57

This is a dilemma faced by increasing numbers of western democracies as the parties of 'right' and 'left' become completely indistinguishable. If you're a socialist in the UK or Eire, who do you vote for? If you're a libertarian, who do you vote for? If you're a fiscal conservative, who do you vote for? And so forth.

If you want corrupt, seedy and profligate trough-dwellers who would have a breakdown if they ever birthed an original thought, you are overwhelmed by choice.

:shame:

Rodion Romanovich

04-30-2006, 09:17

If you have 23 trillion of debt, why not do like Saddam Hussein - press more bills and pay the debts! :laugh4: :2thumbsup:

Brenus

04-30-2006, 09:42

“why not do like Saddam Hussein - press more bills and pay the debts!” Saddam exported oil, you import it… And not only that….:laugh4:

For the debt, French Solutions: sell to your good and rich friends (the ones who give money to your Party before elections) all what belongs to the State/Nation, all what was paid by the past generations, and pretend it is for the good of the entire population and to follow EU regulations.

By the way, it is nice to read a US versus Us debate. Interesting. Actually, I pay my taxes in England, and apparently, UK is going in the same direction than US.
Thank to EU regulations I have the right to vote in Local Elections. But same problems than you: There is no choice, only two conservative parties, and the Libs Dem… What a choice!!! I hope the English will soon rebuilt a Labour Party. At least, it will create some debates…

Byzantine Mercenary

05-02-2006, 14:58

wasn't the original idea for the conservative party that there would be a small state and low taxes? in which case who knows what the two main partys in england ''are''?

yesdachi

05-02-2006, 16:41

Don’t confuse the republicans in office with conservatives.

Papewaio

05-03-2006, 02:15

Well if you lived in Australia your protest vote would have still counted even if Bush got into office he would have seen that a portion of his votes came from the Libertarian voters and would pander to them to help keep them in the fold.

In Aus you vote like this for a Libertarian candidate:

Libertarian 1
Bush 2
Kelly 3

Say in the first round of votes it comes in like this:

Bush 45
Kelly 35
Libertarian 20... and lets assume all the Libertarians vote in lock step (which is kind of contradictory) and all voted the same as yourself.

No one has got more them 50% of the votes so the lowest polling candidate is elminated. His votes then go to the second preference on the voters vote.

So you now have voted for Bush as your candidate has been elminated:
Libertarian 1
Bush 2
Kelly 3

The second round of votes look like this:
Bush 65
Kelly 35

Bush wins and has to recognise that a third of his votes are from Libertarians. This obvioulsy is a lot more effective when it isn't the final term of office... so for getting voter sentiment across to senators it would be a far more effective tool

Alexander the Pretty Good

05-03-2006, 03:04

Sounds good, though I still wouldn't vote for Kelly.

Seamus Fermanagh

05-03-2006, 03:05

Don’t confuse the republicans in office with conservatives.

More truth to this than I care to acknowledge....whoops, just did.

X-man:

I think you are incorrect about a Kerry Presidency. I am virtually certain that we would be talking about a budget that would be re-balanced before the end of a 1st Kerry term. Since, under Kerry, the draw-down in Iraq would already be well underway, and significant portions of the military component of the War on Terror would be shifted to UN sanction efforts and international police-style efforts, our budget would be drastically different.

Mind you, I think that's one way to let Osama and company win, but that's what we'd have. Kerry and crew view Iraq and the longer-ranged aspects of the War on Terror as inherently unwinnable, so such efforts would fall before the budgetary axe.