PDA

View Full Version : US Debt Clock Can't Keep Up With Conservative Spending


Nbadan
05-09-2006, 04:28 AM
http://english.pravda.ru/img/idb/national-debt-clock1.jpg

Dubya has contributed $3 Trillion dollars in debt


The USA’s national debt is increasing by $2.43 billion everyday. People expect the state debt to top the ten trillion dollar mark in the next few years.

A special huge electronic display in New York which shows in real time the size of state debt will not be able to cope with such a high figure. In 1989 the national debt clock was placed in Times Square so that Americans could see how effectively their government was working. At the time the national debt stood at 2.7 trillion dollars.

Yesterday at midday Moscow time the debt stood at $8 369 526 197 055.36. It even rose yesterday by $604 million. If the figures are to be believed, yesterday every American family bore a debt of almost $90 000.

Developer Douglas Durst owns the clock and his father erected it. He hoped to make Americans understand the economy better. The clock worked fine for ten years but in the run up to the new millennium it crashed. In its final moments the clock read that the national debt was $5.7 trillion and that the family share of the debt was $74 000. Durst believed that such a level of debt would not last long and he was right. Within two years the debt had started to grow at an unprecedented rate.

English Pravda (http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/30-03-2006/78085-nationaldebt-0)

but it's liberals who would drive the economy into the ground if you are to believe the wing-nut press.

:lol
RandomGuy
05-09-2006, 07:02 PM
With interest rates rising care to guess where the level of payment on the debt is going?

How much will we have to hike taxes to pay for it all? That is the only real Bush legacy...
Nbadan
05-09-2006, 07:22 PM
With interest rates rising care to guess where the level of payment on the debt is going?

How much will we have to hike taxes to pay for it all? That is the only real Bush legacy...

It's a very short-sighted way to look at the economy. Sure it's humming along now that the FEDS have pumped billions, hell, trillions of dollars to get the economy kick-started again instead of just going through the usual down business cycle.
Aggie Hoopsfan
05-09-2006, 07:42 PM
The problem is neither side up in D.C. is good for shit as far as reigning in spending goes. They all want to fund their pet projects, and fuck the rest of the country.

It's a total fraud on both sides of the aisle.
RandomGuy
05-09-2006, 08:09 PM
The problem is neither side up in D.C. is good for shit as far as reigning in spending goes. They all want to fund their pet projects, and fuck the rest of the country.

It's a total fraud on both sides of the aisle.

Um, which party controls both houses of congress and the presidency?
RobinsontoDuncan
05-09-2006, 08:23 PM
which side wastes over 400 billion in defense ervey year? That's right it's those hawkish dems, fuckers.
RandomGuy
05-09-2006, 08:39 PM
which side wastes over 400 billion in defense ervey year? That's right it's those hawkish dems, fuckers.

Um, which party controls both houses of congress and the presidency?
scott
05-09-2006, 11:36 PM
Which party has ever showed restraint on spending?























































ps: it's a trick question
Nbadan
05-10-2006, 12:56 AM
http://www.factcheck.org/imagefiles/image002.png

Clinton is dark blue; Dubya in red (always in the red)
xrayzebra
05-10-2006, 09:48 AM
http://www.factcheck.org/imagefiles/image002.png

Clinton is dark blue; Dubya in red (always in the red)

Again, dan, I have shown you the national debt and it has gone down in
any year. How many times you gotta be proven wrong. There was no
surplus and national debt was not reduced during Clintons era.
:spin