Here is the problem with this kind of reporting...
Dannymac Send a noteboard - 27/05/2010 07:12:34 AM
13 Trillion! Huge Number!
And they're adding another 200 Billion... ANOTHER Huge number! Those over-spending assholes, at this rate, we're going to owe... uh, lots!
Quick Math lesson... 200 Billion dollars= 1.52% of the National Debt. A drop in a bucket. The article is also misleading on that figure... it starts at ABOUT 300 Billion, then they say NEARLY 200 Billion, and then say "In all, 134 Billion." When did 134 start rounding up to 200, or 300 for that matter?
And another quick lesson for those crying foul: There is a difference between the spending of Bush and Obama. Bush's war spending, which almost DOUBLED the National Debt (5.6 Trillion in 2001 to 10.7 Trillion in December of 2008, according to the Treasury reports) didn't stop when the White House changed hands. Those bills are still accruing, because for better or worse our troops are THERE now and these situations won't just go away. (Yay, exit strategies.) Yeah, the Dems have some programs of their own, and those cost money. But complaining about them is like bitching about the Doctors bill when the real issue is that Caribbean Island you just purchased. ALL the public aid spending is PEANUTS compared to military spending.
This debt is horrible, and needs to be rectified. That said, you don't solve a financial crisis by tossing all your money in the mattress, either. Our government is investing in our nation. There are differing opinions as to whether or not that investment will give any sort of return, though a few already have.
So let's keep the numbers honest and the hysteria down, eh?
And they're adding another 200 Billion... ANOTHER Huge number! Those over-spending assholes, at this rate, we're going to owe... uh, lots!
Quick Math lesson... 200 Billion dollars= 1.52% of the National Debt. A drop in a bucket. The article is also misleading on that figure... it starts at ABOUT 300 Billion, then they say NEARLY 200 Billion, and then say "In all, 134 Billion." When did 134 start rounding up to 200, or 300 for that matter?
And another quick lesson for those crying foul: There is a difference between the spending of Bush and Obama. Bush's war spending, which almost DOUBLED the National Debt (5.6 Trillion in 2001 to 10.7 Trillion in December of 2008, according to the Treasury reports) didn't stop when the White House changed hands. Those bills are still accruing, because for better or worse our troops are THERE now and these situations won't just go away. (Yay, exit strategies.) Yeah, the Dems have some programs of their own, and those cost money. But complaining about them is like bitching about the Doctors bill when the real issue is that Caribbean Island you just purchased. ALL the public aid spending is PEANUTS compared to military spending.
This debt is horrible, and needs to be rectified. That said, you don't solve a financial crisis by tossing all your money in the mattress, either. Our government is investing in our nation. There are differing opinions as to whether or not that investment will give any sort of return, though a few already have.
So let's keep the numbers honest and the hysteria down, eh?
Eschew Verbosity
US Debt Hits $13T - But Spending Spree in DC Continues.....
- 26/05/2010 05:09:48 PM
1063 Views
- 26/05/2010 05:09:48 PM
1063 Views
Look who finally remembered they oppose federal deficits.
- 26/05/2010 05:26:30 PM
666 Views
Silly Joel.....please find the posts where I supported GWB's deficit spending.
- 26/05/2010 05:35:13 PM
723 Views
hmmm
- 26/05/2010 05:40:49 PM
660 Views
That's different; spending trillions on the Iraq war is necessary national defense, just ask Fox.
- 26/05/2010 05:46:49 PM
868 Views
0.7 Trillion doesn't usually qualify as 'Trillions'
- 26/05/2010 06:16:15 PM
815 Views
I'm not willing to try parsing how much DoD spending was and wasn't Iraq just now.
- 26/05/2010 06:27:50 PM
781 Views
You can knock off the "Faux News" stuff, makes you sound like you've been hanging at Daily Kos
- 26/05/2010 07:06:16 PM
843 Views
A Fox News person was involved in writing the article so it sent him into a tissy fit
- 26/05/2010 10:56:35 PM
636 Views
Well, they annoyed the hell out of me by "accusing" Dems of something they supported for 5 years.
- 27/05/2010 03:30:08 PM
867 Views
This would sound better if you didn't say yourself the support was mostly fake
- 28/05/2010 01:05:44 PM
860 Views
I thought overthrowing Saddam was fine.....and it worked out very well.
- 26/05/2010 06:37:31 PM
646 Views
"They" plural.
- 26/05/2010 05:45:48 PM
888 Views
you are so full of crap
- 26/05/2010 05:59:47 PM
694 Views
Oh, they weren't silent; they were quite vocal in their endorsement of the Iraq war.
- 26/05/2010 06:03:51 PM
935 Views
more ranting doesn't support your argument
- 26/05/2010 06:17:22 PM
849 Views
I'll respond to the coherent part of that.
- 26/05/2010 06:30:07 PM
865 Views
- 26/05/2010 06:30:07 PM
865 Views
I wish ...
- 26/05/2010 06:57:30 PM
870 Views
Is the NYT any better pieces slandering McCain and his wife before an election?
- 26/05/2010 07:16:58 PM
710 Views
I don't know those articles specifically.
- 26/05/2010 08:27:44 PM
778 Views
So my repeated use of "M$" in moondogs thread only makes things worse?
- 27/05/2010 03:35:06 PM
760 Views
- 27/05/2010 03:35:06 PM
760 Views
You mean you will repsond to part that you like and ignore the part you don't because of a typo
- 26/05/2010 07:18:03 PM
781 Views
I'll give Joel a little hand here...
- 26/05/2010 09:14:27 PM
876 Views
The second paragraph is very hard to follow unless you already have an idea what he's going to say.
- 27/05/2010 03:43:09 PM
800 Views
yes the good republicans spent a lot of money so democrats should spend even more argument
- 26/05/2010 05:52:57 PM
628 Views
Well, I'll certainly agree that if it's bad, it's bad whoever's doing it.
- 26/05/2010 06:00:20 PM
836 Views
you are attacking Fox News becuase you object to opposing views being expressed
- 26/05/2010 06:27:29 PM
835 Views
Not at all; I just expect a little consistency.
- 26/05/2010 06:40:07 PM
869 Views
then why not show some and admit that all the news agency were backing the war
- 26/05/2010 07:10:57 PM
845 Views
Yes, they were; most of them stopped: One of them didn't.
- 27/05/2010 03:08:34 PM
818 Views
so the other media outlets get a pass because the supported losing a war they supported starting?
- 27/05/2010 06:39:21 PM
681 Views
We were heading in the wrong direction already, but Obama/Dems put the pedal to the floor...
- 26/05/2010 06:41:48 PM
635 Views
I don't mean to defend all of the spending that Obama and Congress have done since he's in power...
- 26/05/2010 09:29:38 PM
817 Views
They did push the pedal further down even if they didn't start it
- 26/05/2010 10:46:38 PM
868 Views
Here is the problem with this kind of reporting...
- 27/05/2010 07:12:34 AM
771 Views
The problem with that kind of logic is it is wrong
- 27/05/2010 02:19:37 PM
669 Views
Yes, that would be wrong.
- 27/05/2010 03:35:30 PM
682 Views
Based on Obama's budget, he will add more to the debt over the next 10 years.....
- 27/05/2010 04:10:45 PM
606 Views
At least we agree that you are wrong because that is what you said
- 27/05/2010 06:50:43 PM
624 Views
And where does the rest of the money come from?
- 27/05/2010 08:12:31 PM
771 Views
No, that's for the entire Department of Defense.
- 27/05/2010 08:25:28 PM
666 Views
using those numbers the war appears to be about half a drop in the bucket *NM*
- 27/05/2010 08:37:31 PM
344 Views


