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 $13T - But Spending Spree in DC Continues.....
26/05/2010 05:09:48 PM
- 920 Views
Look who finally remembered they oppose federal deficits.
26/05/2010 05:26:30 PM
- 542 Views
Silly Joel.....please find the posts where I supported GWB's deficit spending.
26/05/2010 05:35:13 PM
- 599 Views
hmmm
26/05/2010 05:40:49 PM
- 538 Views
That's different; spending trillions on the Iraq war is necessary national defense, just ask Fox.
26/05/2010 05:46:49 PM
- 740 Views
0.7 Trillion doesn't usually qualify as 'Trillions'
26/05/2010 06:16:15 PM
- 685 Views
I'm not willing to try parsing how much DoD spending was and wasn't Iraq just now.
26/05/2010 06:27:50 PM
- 648 Views
You can knock off the "Faux News" stuff, makes you sound like you've been hanging at Daily Kos
26/05/2010 07:06:16 PM
- 704 Views
A Fox News person was involved in writing the article so it sent him into a tissy fit
26/05/2010 10:56:35 PM
- 509 Views
Well, they annoyed the hell out of me by "accusing" Dems of something they supported for 5 years.
27/05/2010 03:30:08 PM
- 727 Views
This would sound better if you didn't say yourself the support was mostly fake
28/05/2010 01:05:44 PM
- 710 Views
I thought overthrowing Saddam was fine.....and it worked out very well.
26/05/2010 06:37:31 PM
- 508 Views
"They" plural.
26/05/2010 05:45:48 PM
- 763 Views
you are so full of crap
26/05/2010 05:59:47 PM
- 561 Views
Oh, they weren't silent; they were quite vocal in their endorsement of the Iraq war.
26/05/2010 06:03:51 PM
- 805 Views
more ranting doesn't support your argument
26/05/2010 06:17:22 PM
- 721 Views
I'll respond to the coherent part of that.
26/05/2010 06:30:07 PM
- 735 Views
I wish ...
26/05/2010 06:57:30 PM
- 708 Views
Is the NYT any better pieces slandering McCain and his wife before an election?
26/05/2010 07:16:58 PM
- 573 Views
I don't know those articles specifically.
26/05/2010 08:27:44 PM
- 643 Views
So my repeated use of "M$" in moondogs thread only makes things worse?
27/05/2010 03:35:06 PM
- 640 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
- 679 Views
I'll give Joel a little hand here...
26/05/2010 09:14:27 PM
- 745 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
- 652 Views
yes the good republicans spent a lot of money so democrats should spend even more argument
26/05/2010 05:52:57 PM
- 501 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
- 709 Views
you are attacking Fox News becuase you object to opposing views being expressed
26/05/2010 06:27:29 PM
- 710 Views
Not at all; I just expect a little consistency.
26/05/2010 06:40:07 PM
- 732 Views
then why not show some and admit that all the news agency were backing the war
26/05/2010 07:10:57 PM
- 710 Views
Yes, they were; most of them stopped: One of them didn't.
27/05/2010 03:08:34 PM
- 681 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
- 556 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
- 496 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
- 684 Views
They did push the pedal further down even if they didn't start it
26/05/2010 10:46:38 PM
- 720 Views
Here is the problem with this kind of reporting...
27/05/2010 07:12:34 AM
- 646 Views
The problem with that kind of logic is it is wrong
27/05/2010 02:19:37 PM
- 531 Views
Yes, that would be wrong.
27/05/2010 03:35:30 PM
- 549 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
- 466 Views
At least we agree that you are wrong because that is what you said
27/05/2010 06:50:43 PM
- 498 Views
And where does the rest of the money come from?
27/05/2010 08:12:31 PM
- 638 Views
No, that's for the entire Department of Defense.
27/05/2010 08:25:28 PM
- 540 Views
using those numbers the war appears to be about half a drop in the bucket *NM*
27/05/2010 08:37:31 PM
- 289 Views