How much is $9.815 trillion?

[Paddy]

And how long will it take our children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren, greatgreatgrandchildren. greatgreatgreatgranchildren, etc., ad infinitum to pay off this foolishness?

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2007-09-28T003622Z_01_N27415556_RTRIDST_0_USA-CONGRESS-DEBT-UPDATE-1.XML

[Fly320s]

What a crock.  Don't these clowns know that this short-term help will kill us in the long-term?

[wooderson]

U.S. debt stood at about $5.6 trillion at the start of Bush's presidency.

DAMN TAX-N-SPEND LIBERALS.

[Paddy]

U.S. debt stood at about $5.6 trillion at the start of Bush's presidency.

DAMN TAX-N-SPEND LIBERALS.

A Democrat majority Congress passed this. You Democrat eunuchs are in charge. Act like it or shut up. 

[wooderson]

I don't vote for or support any Democrats.

ps who was 'in charge' for the other four ceiling hikes?

[Paddy]

I don't vote for or support any Democrats.

ps who was 'in charge' for the other four ceiling hikes?

Phony RINOs.  A pox on both their houses.

[wooderson]

How can a vast majority of the party apparatus - Congressional delegation, Executive Branch and executive appointees - be RINOs?

[Phyphor]

Because republicans elected them?
Because they don't actually follow along strictly with the republican ideals?

In any case, it ain't just the liberals spending gobs of money like it was worthless... I seem to remember a certain war in Iraq.....



Anyhoo, we're screwed either way.  Either raise taxes and pay out the ass to get the debt paid, or just do like we've been doing: run up the bill some more and let future generations cope.

[wooderson]

So the Republican ideals aren't those held by a (super-)majority of the party leadership and Congressional delegation - and by proxy, those who've chosen to elect them?

[Paddy]

I don't know what your point is, wooderson.  You make snide cryptic hit and run comments, empty rhetoric, typical Dem.

[HankB]

Sell bonds to OPEC countries.

When OPEC's oil runs out, nationalize or repudiate the bonds. Seize all properties owned by foreign nationals from OPEC countries.

[wooderson]

My point is that I'm amused by the notion that (in essence), the entirety of the meaningful Republican Party - the people who (attempt) to make the laws, the people who hold power - are 'RINOs' because you don't happen to like their stance.

It would seem to me that people out of step with the party would be the RINOs.

[Phyphor]

So the Republican ideals aren't those held by a (super-)majority of the party leadership and Congressional delegation

Isn't that obvious?  We've had over 10 years of a republican run congress.  Where's the smaller government? Spending cuts?

Instead, we get a feel-good tax cut and spending hikes out the ass.

- and by proxy, those who've chosen to elect them?

No.  Those who chose to elect them did so only because they were  'the lesser of two evils.'

[Phyphor]

My point is that I'm amused by the notion that (in essence), the entirety of the meaningful Republican Party

Therein lies the problem.  Once the votes are cast the people aren't meaningful to the politicians until next election year.

- the people who (attempt) to make the laws, the people who hold power - are 'RINOs' because you don't happen to like their stance.

They're RINOs because they preach one thing and do another, usually something that is in contravention of normal republican party line. 
Say, spending like crazy while at the same time condemning democrats for doing the same.

It would seem to me that people out of step with the party would be the RINOs.

So basically, we should all vote republican and shut up whenever they do things that we don't like?  After all, can't go against the party line, tovarisch?

[wooderson]

Isn't that obvious?  We've had over 10 years of a republican run congress.  Where's the smaller government? Spending cuts?

But see, that doesn't tell me they're RINOs - that tells me that the actual Republican position has nothing to do with 'smaller government' and 'spending cuts.'

[Phyphor]

So, in other words, you're asserting that "Real republicans are whatever the politicians say they are. "

[Werewolf]

It's so much that if you spent a million dollars an hour it would take you over a 1000 years to spend it all.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Because republicans elected them?
Because they don't actually follow along strictly with the republican ideals?

In any case, it ain't just the liberals spending gobs of money like it was worthless... I seem to remember a certain war in Iraq.....



Anyhoo, we're screwed either way.  Either raise taxes and pay out the ass to get the debt paid, or just do like we've been doing: run up the bill some more and let future generations cope.

Couple of things need to be pointed out here. 

First, the cost of the war in Iraq is peanuts compared to the expense of the various welfare programs.  The war in Iraq is running about $100 billion a year, whereas welfare is running about $1.5 trillion a year.  Defense spending (relative to GDP) is actually below average these days, despite the WOT.

Second, the best way to increase revenues to the FedGov is to decrease tax rates, not raise them.  The reduction in tax rates provides incentives to the variuous  participants in the economy to invest more, produce more, earn more, and spend more.  Given that investment, production, earnings, and purchases are all taxed, the reduction of tax rates causes a very significant increase in revenues.

[wooderson]

So, in other words, you're asserting that "Real republicans are whatever the politicians say they are. "

If they didn't speak for "Republicans" and "Republican ideals" - then they wouldn't run the party and be elected by Republican voters.

[wooderson]

whereas welfare is running about $1.5 trillion a year.

Um... no. The entirety of the federal budget is under $3 trillion - there's simply no way you can argue reasonably that better than 50% of the entire budget is spent on 'welfare.'

FY2007, you have about $650bn (high-balling slightly) dedicated to unemployment, 'welfare' and Medicaid. Another $25bn or so in local economic development aid that you can maybe, kinda sorta, call 'welfare.'

The defense budget is a tick under $700bn - which doesn't include supplemental appropriations, which are over $100bn at this point I believe. Your '$100bn'/year leaves out numerous costs incurred in the defense budget that aren't written up directly to Iraq - the final defense budget of Clinton's term was $300bn. The vast majority of the debt incurred under Dubya can be traced directly to out of control defense spending.

[Werewolf]

there's simply no way you can argue reasonably that better than 50% of the entire budget is spent on 'welfare.'

If one considers entitlements welfare - and that's not much of a stretch - then - yes - better than 50% of the budget is welfare.

[Phyphor]

So, in other words, you're asserting that "Real republicans are whatever the politicians say they are. "

If they didn't speak for "Republicans" and "Republican ideals" - then they wouldn't run the party and be elected by Republican voters.

Sure they would.  All they have to do is do the typical politician thing of "Gee, things are bad now.  I'm gonna change them by sticking to conservative values.  Elect me and you'll see!" bit.

Once they get elected, to hell with the voters.  Politicians (of any stripe) tend to do whatever the hell they please.

[Perd Hapley]

The vast majority of the debt incurred under Dubya can be traced directly to out of control defense spending.

Out of control?   

So, in other words, you're asserting that "Real republicans are whatever the politicians say they are. "

If they didn't speak for "Republicans" and "Republican ideals" - then they wouldn't run the party and be elected by Republican voters.

Sure they would.  All they have to do is do the typical politician thing of "Gee, things are bad now.  I'm gonna change them by sticking to conservative values.  Elect me and you'll see!" bit.  Once they get elected, to hell with the voters.   

Exactly.  Like all politicians, they make promises they don't intend to keep.  That, and we elect lukewarm Republicans to shut out the other party, which is worse.  Aren't these things obvious? 

[wooderson]

None of that contradicts my argument: the alleged 'RINOs' on this particular topic represent the mainstream belief of Republican politicians, and by proxy, Republican voters. Unless your argument is that Republican voters, at this point, don't realize that everyone leading their party and everyone they vote for is a "RINO"...

Look, I understand the RINO argument for the oddball here and there who's pro-gay rights or anti-guns or something. But in this case, it's not an oddball, it's the entire party apparatus - in no way can the entire party be "in name only."

Out of control?

Yes.

If one considers entitlements welfare

Medicare and Social Security are not 'welfare' - they are, theoretically, forms of insurance/pension that we all pay into and withdraw from at some point. They are not sourced from the same revenue sources as traditional welfare or defense or other budget items.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

whereas welfare is running about $1.5 trillion a year.

Um... no. The entirety of the federal budget is under $3 trillion - there's simply no way you can argue reasonably that better than 50% of the entire budget is spent on 'welfare.'

FY2007, you have about $650bn (high-balling slightly) dedicated to unemployment, 'welfare' and Medicaid. Another $25bn or so in local economic development aid that you can maybe, kinda sorta, call 'welfare.'

The defense budget is a tick under $700bn - which doesn't include supplemental appropriations, which are over $100bn at this point I believe. Your '$100bn'/year leaves out numerous costs incurred in the defense budget that aren't written up directly to Iraq - the final defense budget of Clinton's term was $300bn. The vast majority of the debt incurred under Dubya can be traced directly to out of control defense spending.

You're numbers are simply incorrect.  Check the numbers yourself.  This site has a good graphical view of the budget broken out into categories:  http://www.federalbudget.com/ Or you can go look up the official budgets from various government websites.  Google "US Federal Budget", you'll get the same data, but without the pretty graphics.

"Welfare" consumes the following:
Social Security - $620B
The bulk of the Health and Human Services Department budget (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and administration thereof) - $700B.
All of the Housing and Urban Development Department's budget (housing aid) - $50B.
The bulk of the Agriculture Department budget (foodstamps, school lunch programs, etc) - $80B

Total it up.  It comes to about $1.5 trillion.

The Defense Department eats up about $700B.  However, we'd be spending that same $700B regardless of whether we were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.  So if we're being honest, the only costs we can chalk up to the WoT are the occasional "Supplemental Appropriations Bills", which are averaging out to $75B or $100B a year.  Also bear in mind that national defense is a legitimate use of the Fedgov, whereas wealth redistribution programs are a blatant unconstitutional abuse of power.

Next time you hear some ninny Liberal blathering on about how George W Bush is wasting the nations treasure on the War in Iraq, quietly remind him that Liberals waste fifteen or twenty times more more on the War on Poverty.  And unlike GWB, the Libs have been at it for 40 (and in some cases 80) years. 

When are the Libs going to demand we accept defeat and withdraw from that hopelessly lost quagmire?