$88,787 per second, 24/7

Beefy

Beefy

Worst gambler ever
Just a reminder to you so called conservative Bush and Congress backers.

The Federal government will spend $88,787 per second, 24 hours per day, 365 days for 2007. This does not include the Iraq expenditures.

Just an FYI. That's Republican Conservatism for you.
 
Remember that liberal all spender Clinton? Well, the "conservative" Republican congress and W are spending about $25,000 PER SECOND more than his ass. Conservitives rule right?
 
I worked a long time to get "Conservatives" into both houses and the WH..

AND THIS IS WHAT I GET???!

I'm voting Libertarian from now on...
 
Beefy said:
Just a reminder to you so called conservative Bush and Congress backers.

The Federal government will spend $88,787 per second, 24 hours per day, 365 days for 2007. This does not include the Iraq expenditures.

Just an FYI. That's Republican Conservatism for you.
Click to expand...

Well, not that it makes much difference but a good part of that is locked in from year to year and there is nothing that the current administration can do about it. That does not excuse them because they are just as guilty as anyone else in allowing it to get so high in previous years.

Immie
 
They act like a poor materialistic person who can't afford shit but has to have the latest thing, so they buy it on credit expecting to pay it back later, only to find out they can't pay it back. A bunch of assholes...
 
DigitalDave said:
They act like a poor materialistic person who can't afford shit but has to have the latest thing, so they buy it on credit expecting to pay it back later, only to find out they can't pay it back. A bunch of assholes...
Click to expand...

I would agree with this except for one thing. They don't expect to pay it back later. They have found the ultimate credit card. They realize that it is our grandchildren that will have to pay for their spending. They won't ever have to deal with it as long as they can keep the credit coming.

Immie
 
Immanuel said:
Well, not that it makes much difference but a good part of that is locked in from year to year and there is nothing that the current administration can do about it. That does not excuse them because they are just as guilty as anyone else in allowing it to get so high in previous years.

Immie
Click to expand...

if so, why didn't the repubs just ''lock in'' the same overall spending as they did during the clinton years?

i disagree with you i think....

we had balanced the budget, including these fixed expenses for three years in a row, before Bush/republican reign....an estimated 5 trillion dollar surplus to come....of which the republicans took, and returned back to the ''people'' via Bush's first tax cut proposal....

regardless of this, you don't go from spending 40k a second to 88k a second in spending without a CONCERTED EFFORT to OVERSPEND.....imho.
 
Care4all said:
if so, why didn't the repubs just ''lock in'' the same overall spending as they did during the clinton years?

i disagree with you i think....

we had balanced the budget, including these fixed expenses for three years in a row, before Bush/republican reign....an estimated 5 trillion dollar surplus to come....of which the republicans took, and returned back to the ''people'' via Bush's first tax cut proposal....

regardless of this, you don't go from spending 40k a second to 88k a second in spending without a CONCERTED EFFORT to OVERSPEND.....imho.
Click to expand...

You must not have understood this part, "but a good part of that is locked in from year to year". I did not say all of the spending simply a good part of it.

Immie
 
Immanuel said:
You must not have understood this part, "but a good part of that is locked in from year to year". I did not say all of the spending simply a good part of it.

Immie
Click to expand...

As well as the increases in a good portion of it. Whenever they try to reign in an increase to keep it more manageable they get, "They're cutting funding!" from their opponents...

Of course you haven't heard too much of it since the Rs started slavishly following a "Compassionate Conservative"... Pretty much everything bad and none of the good parts of the R Party all rolled into a two word phrase...
 
Immanuel said:
I would agree with this except for one thing. They don't expect to pay it back later. They have found the ultimate credit card. They realize that it is our grandchildren that will have to pay for their spending. They won't ever have to deal with it as long as they can keep the credit coming.

Immie
Click to expand...


but this is soooooooooooo wrong....this manner of thinking....of congress thinking it will ONLY hit the grandchildren...

we are paying right now, with fairly low interest rates, $350,000,000,000.00 a year in interest payments.....SO IT IS HITTING the citizen now, in reduced benefits and even more money having to be borrowed to just pay the interest payment of what's been borrowed already....if we cut the estate taxes, we add another $200 billion every 10 years to that $350 billion in interest payments..... nevermind payments that should be made to reduce the national debt....

sorry for the rambling....this is just so disturbing.... :(
care

we are doomed! :(
 
Beefy said:
Remember that liberal all spender Clinton? Well, the "conservative" Republican congress and W are spending about $25,000 PER SECOND more than his ass. Conservitives rule right?
Click to expand...

I don't know where the myth of the fiscally responsible "conservative" comes from. If you look at actual empirical data for the last half century, Democratic adminstrations and congress' spend less on average.

Republicans love big government and deficit spending. Its just they their priority is spending on military, war, and corporate welfare.

And no, the argument that bush is a "liberal" aberation doesn't fly. He's been supported almost 100% by virtually all the republicans in congress. This is, in fact, how republicans govern.
 
"we are paying right now, with fairly low interest rates, $350,000,000,000.00 a year in interest payments.....SO IT IS HITTING the citizen now, in reduced benefits and even more money having to be borrowed to just pay the interest payment of what's been borrowed already....if we cut the estate taxes, we add another $200 billion every 10 years to that $350 billion in interest payments..... nevermind payments that should be made to reduce the national debt...."

I'd say more that right now we are paying for our parents spending. Today's spending won't hit until our grandchildren are in power.

Immie
 
Cypress said:
I don't know where the myth of the fiscally responsible "conservative" comes from. If you look at actual empirical data for the last half century, Democratic adminstrations and congress' spend less on average.

Republicans love big government and deficit spending. Its just they their priority is spending on military, war, and corporate welfare.

And no, the argument that bush is a "liberal" aberation doesn't fly. He's been supported almost 100% by virtually all the republicans in congress. This is, in fact, how republicans govern.
Click to expand...


I agree ..this President and his republican cohorts are very "liberal" with their spending habits ...

Fortunately Clinton and a Newt led House were exteremely fiscally responsible.

Reagan on the other hand ... with a Democratically controlled Congress had difficulties coming to an agreement on spending priorties ...
See Reagan believed the Government shouldnt spend more than it takes in ... and he also understood the need to rebuild the Military... lower the top tax bracket from 70% down to 28% .. because clearly that would empower Business...which it did... but the Democratically controlled Congrees didnt know how to adjust their spending habits according to what was coming in ...
Even though revenue was increasing because of the growth of business and investment ...they were spending like.... drunken sailors!

But you are right ..this Republican Congress is the worst yet .. no argument here....
 
klaatu said:
I agree ..this President and his republican cohorts are very "liberal" with their spending habits ...

Fortunately Clinton and a Newt led House were exteremely fiscally responsible.

Reagan on the other hand ... with a Democratically controlled Congress had difficulties coming to an agreement on spending priorties ...
See Reagan believed the Government shouldnt spend more than it takes in ... and he also understood the need to rebuild the Military... lower the top tax bracket from 70% down to 28% .. because clearly that would empower Business...which it did... but the Democratically controlled Congrees didnt know how to adjust their spending habits according to what was coming in ...
Even though revenue was increasing because of the growth of business and investment ...they were spending like.... drunken sailors!

But you are right ..this Republican Congress is the worst yet .. no argument here....
Click to expand...

Divided government seems to spend less. I emphasize "seems", because I haven't seen long-term empirical data to back that up.

BTW- its not accurate to say reagan had a "democratic controlled" congress.

The GOP ran the seante from 1981-1987, so the GOP controlled two of the three entitities that propose and implement spending: white house and senate.
 
I do not see why the Fed needs to spend more than 1.5 trillion per year.

Half of that would be funding for the military.
 
my bad... silly me... in any event they are euthanizing poor puppies for no good reason in Denver. so of course it would go for GW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top