National Debt

[ianlippert]

lol, the thing I love most about that pirate graph is that the numbers on the bottom arent even sequential.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That clock actually started running backwards when Clinton was in office.
[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

And has reached a record fast speed running forwards under Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a diehard conservative, and I can admit this isn't a partisan issue. There might have been a time when I would argue that the Reps were/are the party of fiscal responsibility. That can't be said anymore. But, if anyone thinks that either party is willing to take a stand on this issue (addressed on 60 Minutes this evening) and suffer the short term consequences, they are crazy. Neither party has the balls to stand up and say that we are a world of hurt when it comes to the unfunded promises that have been made and can't be met in the future. We will have all parties (and ourselves to blame) to blame.

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think the money we have already spent on the Iraq Occupation would have solved the problem. But making sure the Iraqi people have "freedom" is more important than the future financial crash of America. Money for Guns, not Butter!

[/ QUOTE ]

Solved what problem? Aren't we almost 9 trillion in debt or have I read the clock wrong? How much have we spent in Iraq? It's just over 1 trillion I think(correct me if I'm wrong). Yea, -7.9 trillion is def way better than -8.9 trillion. No Iraq, problem solved!

EDIT: I'm against the war In Iraq, I just think it's silly to blame all the government's spending issues on the war. It's wayyyyy more than that.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
the thing that concerns me among other economic issues is



[/ QUOTE ]

Poorly defined graphs worry me as well.

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That clock actually started running backwards when Clinton was in office.
[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

And has reached a record fast speed running forwards under Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a diehard conservative, and I can admit this isn't a partisan issue. There might have been a time when I would argue that the Reps were/are the party of fiscal responsibility. That can't be said anymore. But, if anyone thinks that either party is willing to take a stand on this issue (addressed on 60 Minutes this evening) and suffer the short term consequences, they are crazy. Neither party has the balls to stand up and say that we are a world of hurt when it comes to the unfunded promises that have been made and can't be met in the future. We will have all parties (and ourselves to blame) to blame.

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think the money we have already spent on the Iraq Occupation would have solved the problem. But making sure the Iraqi people have "freedom" is more important than the future financial crash of America. Money for Guns, not Butter!

[/ QUOTE ]

Solved what problem? Aren't we almost 9 trillion in debt or have I read the clock wrong? How much have we spent in Iraq? It's just over 1 trillion I think(correct me if I'm wrong). Yea, -7.9 trillion is def way better than -8.9 trillion. No Iraq, problem solved!

EDIT: I'm against the war In Iraq, I just think it's silly to blame all the government's spending issues on the war. It's wayyyyy more than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referencing this quote: "unfunded promises that have been made and can't be met in the future" which I believe the OP was talking about the looming baby boomer crunch with social security and medicare. The 1 trillion injected into the system now (and allowed to accrue for 20 years)instead of spent on Iraq would keep the system solvent and get us past the baby boomer hump.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
lol, the thing I love most about that pirate graph is that the numbers on the bottom arent even sequential.

[/ QUOTE ]

They aren't supposed to be. The years are. They represent the number of pirates.