$10200000000000 or ten trillion 200 billion and change

[Don Quixote]

$10,200,000,000,000 or roughly $10 trillion 200 billion, this is our national debt as of today

it is growing at $1,000,000 per 6 seconds or roughly $3,000,000,000 a day

is not republican rule wonderful - the people that brought socialism to the u s of a


capitalism + greed = socialism

where are the conservatives that were saying that the economy is just wonderful - i.e., no recession

right, no recession just an incipient depression

 

[ib1yysguy]

capitalism + greed = socialism

retarded

 

[Don Quixote]

retarded

it has worked that way in the good old u s of a - unregulated commerce devolves into capitalism - and the bailout by the government is socialism - i.e., ownership of businesses by a government - at least they did not nationalize them

 

[uscitizen]

Don it is not as if WE expect to have to pay it. That has become the American way.

 

[KingCondanomation]

it has worked that way in the good old u s of a - unregulated commerce devolves into capitalism - and the bailout by the government is socialism - i.e., ownership of businesses by a government - at least they did not nationalize them

No, unregulated commerce IS capitalism. And if you think the massive regulations business face today equals unregulated commerce then you are clueless.

And yes Repubs have been bad in spending, do you expect Democrats with unviersal healthcare to be anything but worse?

 

[Don Quixote]

No, unregulated commerce IS capitalism. And if you think the massive regulations business face today equals unregulated commerce then you are clueless.

And yes Repubs have been bad in spending, do you expect Democrats with unviersal healthcare to be anything but worse?

it is a matter of who benefits or should i say how many

the reps enrich themselves, the dems tend to try to take care of the rest

however, i am sanguine about a dem pres and dem congress

whichever candidate 'wins' they are in for a rough time and likely will not get reelected

 

[KingCondanomation]

it is a matter of who benefits or should i say how many
the reps enrich themselves, the dems tend to try to take care of the rest

That has nothing to do with capitalism but I'll respond. That is a stereotype. Repubs enriched themselves in what manner? By rewarding donors? Both parties do that. Beyond that I don't consider tax cuts which allow people to keep more of their own money as a reward, you are just being punished LESS. Yes Dems do try and "take care" of others, specifically those who abandon their pride and opt to make themselves dependent on government.

You sound like you are too immersed in this style of thinking:
""Need" now means wanting someone else's money. "Greed" means wanting to keep your own. "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer." – Joseph Sobran, columnist.

And can you please change your label, you are not a fiscal Conservative, I have NEVER seen you advocate anything to do with that, instead you opine with vague musings over wishing government would do more, no matter the problem.

however, i am sanguine about a dem pres and dem congress
whichever candidate 'wins' they are in for a rough time and likely will not get reelected

I doubt it, they will blame every last problem they have on Bush for a good number of years. In politics, you get a grace period to blame the other party for the first little while and you get away with it, whether justified or not. Rightwingers did the same shit with Clinton. Dems will push their over 1 trillion dollar a year universal healthcare plan and on the ensuing financial problems will blame a $100 billion a year Iraq war.

 

[Don Quixote]

That has nothing to do with capitalism but I'll respond. That is a stereotype. Repubs enriched themselves in what manner? By rewarding donors? Both parties do that. Beyond that I don't consider tax cuts which allow people to keep more of their own money as a reward, you are just being punished LESS. Yes Dems do try and "take care" of others, specifically those who abandon their pride and opt to make themselves dependent on government.

You sound like you are too immersed in this style of thinking:
""Need" now means wanting someone else's money. "Greed" means wanting to keep your own. "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer." – Joseph Sobran, columnist.

And can you please change your label, you are not a fiscal Conservative, I have NEVER seen you advocate anything to do with that, instead you opine with vague musings over wishing government would do more, no matter the problem.


I doubt it, they will blame every last problem they have on Bush for a good number of years. In politics, you get a grace period to blame the other party for the first little while and you get away with it, whether justified or not. Rightwingers did the same shit with Clinton. Dems will push their over 1 trillion dollar a year universal healthcare plan and on the ensuing financial problems will blame a $100 billion a year Iraq war.

oops, that should have been i am NOT sanguine about a dem pres and congress

as for the iraq/afghan wars, try $3trillion to date in money spent and needed to restore our armed forces in manpower and equipment plus taking care of the veterans

bushco has piled up a debt that will take decades to repay and yes i expect the dems to add to it

 

[KingCondanomation]

oops, that should have been i am NOT sanguine about a dem pres and congress

as for the iraq/afghan wars, try $3trillion to date in money spent and needed to restore our armed forces in manpower and equipment plus taking care of the veterans

bushco has piled up a debt that will take decades to repay and yes i expect the dems to add to it

I'm calling extreme bullshit on the $3 trillion mark. The Iraq war is averaged at 90 billion for the last 5 years, while Afghanistan is less than that. Armed force were already getting restored and veteran healthcare is not that much as I'm sure you know we have far fewer casualties than previous wars like Nam.
If you have different numbers, let's see them.

You are being dishonest in your comparison, you calculate the value of the wars for all years and speculative future costs and compare that to universal healthcare which I gave a number which is PER YEAR.
Fiscally wars are not terrible as they do end and are politically easier to end then social welfare programs which continually expand and never end.

 

[uscitizen]

We have fewer deaths but a much higher rate of disabled vets in this war than in any previous war.

the dead ones are cheap compared to the disabled ones you have to care for for the rest of their life.

 

[Don Quixote]

I'm calling extreme bullshit on the $3 trillion mark. The Iraq war is averaged at 90 billion for the last 5 years, while Afghanistan is less than that. Armed force were already getting restored and veteran healthcare is not that much as I'm sure you know we have far fewer casualties than previous wars like Nam.
If you have different numbers, let's see them.

You are being dishonest in your comparison, you calculate the value of the wars for all years and speculative future costs and compare that to universal healthcare which I gave a number which is PER YEAR.
Fiscally wars are not terrible as they do end and are politically easier to end then social welfare programs which continually expand and never end.

i regret that i do not have the article at hand that explained the $3trillion, but a goodly chunk will be restoring expended hardware to not only regular military but to national guard units

national guard and military reserve units are taking it in the shorts with regard to attracting new soldiers

we will be paying for this war for decades, not to mention the wounded, maimed and killed