Posted on 10/21/2005 8:17:33 AM PDT by philsfan24
Current Month: 10/18/2005
Debt Held by the Public: 4,625,430,149,447.35
Intragovernmental Holdings: 3,378,467,257,463.89
Total: 8,003,897,406,911.24
(Excerpt) Read more at publicdebt.treas.gov ...
Couldn't they have at least rounded up to the nearest dollar?
So what? I am hurting the country by buying savings bonds?
One of my favorite sites to prove we have not had a surplus since 1960.
I like how under their FAQ they provide info on how you can make a contribution to reduce the debt. Great!!! Where's my checkbook? </sarc>
Now if they let me make a contribution which would forgive me from ever having to pay increased taxes to service the fiscal insanity of the past few years, I might consider it.
Kool-aiders will be along shortly to assure us that as a % of GDP, we're actually doing quite well.
...as my tagline states.....
Meant eight trillion.
Because there are many 'off-budget' accounts that get stacked on the debt pile. When Slickster was claimning a balanced budget, the debt ceiling went up something like 350 billion.
Well, to be fair, you can show a VERY small surplus in 1999 and 2000 from the CBO numbers, but those are calculated differently... If you issue $20 billion in securities on Sept. 28th to finance 2006 activities, that would impact the debt numbers on the BPD page for FY end 2005, but it wouldn't show up on the CBO until FY 2006. Its all trickery, really... I wouldn't call the CBO numbers from 99 and 00 anything to get excited over, but they were closer to a balance in 00 than anytime in recent history...
But adding $554 billion in a year is nuts.... But hey! That's a $41 billion improvement! </sarc>
Get the pit boss over here. I want to put it all on one roll, double or nothing.
Don't worry Huck. In 2008 hildebeast will fix this right up for you! (sarc)
LLS
Almost $8 trillion? I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it (oops, I mean it will be a cold day in Alaska before we spend that kind of money).
Typical brain-dead response.
Yeah but Delay said we've pared Government down as much as possible.
And Republican Ted Stevens said he would resign if the GOP Congress didn't give him his bridges to nowhere. The happily obliged him.
I'm slowly trying to get things paid off. It isn't easy. One thing at a time. I have two kids with braces on their teeth, and college expenses.
Life is not easy. It is also not easy when citizens of this country are expected to pick up expenses of all the DEAD WOOD people who refuse to work.
END WELFARE. Instead of raising taxes, put the people on the dole on notice.
Republicans aren't doing any better than the Dumbrats on the government spending problem. Bush has been a real disappointment to me, he hasn't shown any backbone and pushed back on spending. That bridge in Alaska really says it all.
Republicanism...The party of small government and fiscal restraint....Say what?????????????
That argument is used to lull the unwashed masses back to sleep.
Where do you even infer that I support that. I hate the Chicoms (we will probably have to kick their ass one day), and I refuse to buy Chicom products. I hate liberal spending (and let's face it, the debt is far more past FDR/Johnson "great society" crap (and pork) than anything else).
The one exception that I make is National Defense. I DO NOT CARE how much money we spend to fight Islamofacism, or to continue to keep our country ahead of all enemies with regards to technology.
I don't understand why you would even think that I would support the things that you mentioned? One can be against these things, and still support President Bush on the things with which we agree. If you disagree, then we will just have to agree to disagree.
LLS
Incorrect. I said your response was brain-dead. It was. You can't just say "Hillary's comin' to get you" as a response to criticism. It's just dumb. Sorry, but it is. I've never voted for a Democrat in my life.
As for criticizing the president, everyone always says, "If you don't vote, you can't complain." Well, I voted for GWB, so I think I have a right to say my peace about his performance. Sorry you don't approve. Just rah-rah, is that it?
You and your fellow haters will rue the day you attacked those of us who are Conservatives, but disagree on letting this process mature (by following the Constitution)... and allowing the hearings to take place.
I'm OK with the hearings taking place. Hell, I'll be ecstatic if she hits a home run. I'll be thrilled if she makes it on the court and proves me wrong. I'll learn from the experience, AND get a good justice. I'd be fine with all that. All I'm doing here is commenting and sharing my thoughts. I don't see the harm in it.
My reaction to Miers started out ballistic, then I calmed down and decided to just wait and see, then I saw some of her writing, which was appallingly bad, then I read some of the John Fund stuff, the Rich Lowry stuff, the Byron York stuff, the Rush Limbaugh stuff, and I have the impression things are going exceedingly bad for Ms. Miers. But I'm looking forward to the hearings. Nov. 7th can't come soon enough for me.
I guess Charles is brain-dead also? At least I am in good company!
This Charles Krauthammer?
It's no secret that I think the Harriet Miers nomination was a mistake.
It's hard to find an exact number but the best I can determine there are about 470 million acres of federally owned land, including mountains, deserts, national forests, etc. Assuming half of it could somehow be sold, it would have to sell for about $35,000 per acre to equal the eight trillion of debt.
"Incorrect. I said your response was brain-dead."
It stings the same, however.
"It was. You can't just say "Hillary's comin' to get you" as a response to criticism. It's just dumb. Sorry, but it is. I've never voted for a Democrat in my life."
I never have accused you of voting dim, and I never would. I have no problem with criticism of policy, and I respect anyone's opinion here on FR (except for trolls). My point is that weakening President Bush through attacking him as has been done in the press and here on FR (and you know that many attacks have nothing to do with Miers, and are far more hateful of the man than any of his policies dictate), it will only help to defeat us in 2006. Anything that weakens the Republican party will help hildebeast in 2008. It is simple deduction, and it happens to be true.
"As for criticizing the president, everyone always says, "If you don't vote, you can't complain." Well, I voted for GWB, so I think I have a right to say my peace about his performance. Sorry you don't approve. Just rah-rah, is that it?"
See my comment above.
"I'm OK with the hearings taking place. Hell, I'll be ecstatic if she hits a home run. I'll be thrilled if she makes it on the court and proves me wrong. I'll learn from the experience, AND get a good justice. I'd be fine with all that. All I'm doing here is commenting and sharing my thoughts. I don't see the harm in it."
If all of your posts were as clear and focused as this last above statement, I would have no problem with it at all. I RESPECT your dissenting opinion, but I disdain personal hate-filled rants against a man that does NOT deserve it... even from disgruntled supporters. I do not put dissenting opinion in with rants and hate speech.
"My reaction to Miers started out ballistic, then I calmed down and decided to just wait and see, then I saw some of her writing, which was appallingly bad, then I read some of the John Fund stuff, the Rich Lowry stuff, the Byron York stuff, the Rush Limbaugh stuff, and I have the impression things are going exceedingly bad for Ms. Miers. But I'm looking forward to the hearings. Nov. 7th can't come soon enough for me."
I agree. I hope that you understand that I will NOT be uspet if she fails to convince. She will stand or fall on her own merit. There will be no ill will coming from me, regardless of outcome. I just can't stand to see our side turn on one another over what should and could be a reasoned and well thought out debate. Just reading this thread, and seeing some of the hate within it, should convince you that what I say is true.
"This Charles Krauthammer?
It's no secret that I think the Harriet Miers nomination was a mistake."
Yes that very one. He said, "I do not agree with the attacks that are coming from some on the right. While I still feel that her nomination was a mistake, I believe that some Conservatives will regret some of the things that they have said."
He also stated that he believed that President Bush was a Conservative, and it was unfair to misrepresent him as a liberal.
LLS
No, we will just have to disagree. He is a Conservative in my eyes. He is also a Conservative to Charles Krauthammer, even though he still thinks Miers was a mistake. Same statement came from Kristol yesterday (on Laura Ingraham's show). I am not alone in my opinion, and I am a Conservative (whether you wish to believe me or not)
LLS
Further proof of Bush's true antipathy toward conservative principles. Cut taxes - great, but cut the da*n spending too you idiots! Any sane person knows when their income drops their purchases have to go down too.
Further proof of Bush's true antipathy toward conservative principles. Cut taxes - great, but cut the da*n spending too you idiots! Any sane person knows when their income drops their purchases have to go down too.
Mr. DeLay was defending Republicans' choice to borrow money and add to this year's expected $331 billion deficit to pay for Hurricane Katrina relief. Some Republicans have said Congress should make cuts in other areas, but Mr. DeLay said that doesn't seem possible.
"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing.
Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."
That's just BS, why aren't we talking about completely eliminating entire divisions of the federal govenment like The Gipper did? I'll respond for you - because we have no leadership from the POTUS..
The truth gets you flamed here. The neo-con massive government apologists don't like to hear this stuff.
Anything that weakens the Republican party will help hildebeast in 2008. It is simple deduction, and it happens to be true.
All I can say is that's pretty much out of my control. I'm not the Republican party. I'm just a voter. If the Republican party weakens, it's not my fault, any more than the weather is the weatherman's fault. I would also say that there is some debate as to whether or not internal debates like this truly weaken the GOP or not. I happen to believe that obedience weakens the GOP, also. It's a fine line. Like I said, I've pretty much tried to hold my fire on this since my first two days of meltdown. Whatever I'm saying at this point is probably pretty much par for the course for me (bitch, whine, moan, etc.)
When you consider my default point of view on GWB, my current demeanor is actually pretty laid back. I'm not piling on. I'm following the news. I'm reacting to it. But I'm not stoking the fires. I find the constant threat of Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Clinton etc etc frustrating, because there will always be external threats. That can't possibly mean that we voters are not supposed to hold the GOP accountable. I understand we can't cut off our own noses, but there has to be some wiggle room to apply pressure, or else why even pay attention?
We are gonna hit the ceiling by the end of the week.
12/30/2005 $8,170,424,541,313.62
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.