This is a lot of money, I wonder where it's at Options

[darksecret]

Toward the end of Clinton's first year in office: 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38

8 years later: 09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86

Toward the end of Bush's first year in office: 09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06

Current: 08/19/2005 $7,926,125,407,102.74

From the Bureau of the Public Debt.

This post has been edited by darksecret: Aug 23, 2005 - 11:05 AM

[boosted_K2]

what is that? the national debt??

[LewFX]

someone has to fund the military and nasa.

[amysmojo]

Oh the things I could do w/ that money.....

[darksecret]

I never could figure the military funding thing out because I was a Marine so we still used "Mickey Mouse" boots from the Korean War and 5 tons (we got a few 7 tons which is the replacment) and all of our barracks furniture was made by prisoners (or thats what the label said).

[darksecret]

Oh the things I could do w/ that money.....
[right][snapback]327225[/snapback][/right]

The things you could do with one percent of that money.

Here is a better one ExxonMobil made $21,517,000,000.00 last year and is higher than that this year, BTW that's profit the gross was around $500 billion. Imagine having $21.5 billion in just spending money, i'd buy West Coast Customs and make them quit "pimping rides yo" bunch of posers.

This post has been edited by darksecret: Aug 23, 2005 - 12:36 PM

[bojangles_8686]

for $21.5 billion, I would buy my own island and build myself a nice huge a$$ house. In the states, I would buy a HUGE piece of land and just fill it up with cars

[playr158]

buy an island for a few mill.....pave a 2 mile long smooth asphalt road.....
build a 1000 lb 1500 rwd car using only CF

[kristinw85]

Toward the end of Clinton's first year in office: 09/30/1993        $4,411,488,883,139.38

8 years later:                                                09/29/2000        $5,674,178,209,886.86

Toward the end of Bush's first year in office:    09/28/2001        $5,807,463,412,200.06

Current:                                                      08/19/2005        $7,926,125,407,102.74

From the Bureau of the Public Debt.
[right][snapback]327215[/snapback][/right]

that's why i voted for kerry....

[Consynx]

Yay for me

This post has been edited by Consynx: Aug 23, 2005 - 5:20 PM

[LewFX]

even if kerry was in office and we went to war, we still would be paying up the butt in military costs.

[Smlogg]

http://walken2008.com/

>.<

[mr_dude]

even if kerry was in office and we went to war, we still would be paying up the butt in military costs.
[right][snapback]327364[/snapback][/right]

Agreed, Bush's wars aren't exactly something we can easily pull out of.

Large part definitely goes to the war effort (millions/day). And let's not forget all the overpaid, underqualified ruffians at the airports with badges that harken in style to Germany in the 1930s. We've wasted a lot on 'homeland security.'

A cause and side effect, plus really good read:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4172504.stm

[soulshadow]

I don't really get it anymore! The gov. has a huge AS debt, but somehow at the end of the the year they can refund part of our money back. Perhaps it's best not to get involved with politcs.

[celicaST]

numbers speak for themselves

bodget overview

nasa's budget by the way is hardly a factor

by the way, a national deficit is not necessarily a unfortunate thing. deficit spending can and has been used to stimulate economic growth in the past.

taken from wikipedia:

"Following John Maynard Keynes, many economists recommend deficit spending in order to moderate or end a recession, especially a severe one. When the economy has high unemployment, an increase in government purchases create a market for business output, creating income and encouraging increases in consumer spending, which creates further increases in the demand for business output. (This is the multiplier effect). This raises the real gross domestic product (GDP) and the employment of labor, all else constant lowering the unemployment rate. (The connection between demand for GDP and unemployment is called Okun's Law.) Cutting personal taxes and/or raising transfer payments can have similar expansionary effects, though most economists would say that such policies have weaker effects on aggregate demand. On the other hand, if supply-side (non-Keynesian) effects are brought into consideration, which method has a better stimulative economic effect is a matter of debate."

[ArizonaRed]

Who cares if we have debt. were number one and nobody has balls enough to ask for their money back. We take what we want and do what we want. My unit didnt get anything until iraq war and now theyve got all new vehicles and armor. We spent 750k just on our plasma tvs for the command center.

[mr_dude]

Indeed, the remedy for a recession is deficit spending. The problem is, spending the money to keep aircraft carriers running doesn't stimulate economic growth. The link I posted mentions the lack of money put into science and technology - the two things that have provided us monetary gains on a national level.

were number one and nobody has balls enough to ask for their money back.

I'm glad you're proud to be an American, but that's not how national debt works. Just like taking out a car loan, we pay interest. It amounted to $314,909,670,536.68 in FY05 (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm). The #3 budget expenditure. The government has never defaulted on a loan (many of which are bonds that American citizens buy), if it did then we'd be in much much worse shape.

My unit didnt get anything until iraq war and now theyve got all new vehicles and armor. We spent 750k just on our plasma tvs for the command center.

I'm not even going to go into the absurdity of specific purchases or a war "to free the people of Iraq."

[OSIRIS]

with figures on the billions/trillions, is the .75c or so really necissary. You would think they could just ignore cents; just this once

[darksecret]

Who cares if we have debt. were number one and nobody has balls enough to ask for their money back. We take what we want and do what we want. My unit didnt get anything until iraq war and now theyve got all new vehicles and armor. We spent 750k just on our plasma tvs for the command center.
[right][snapback]327499[/snapback][/right]

Being that I was in the Corps I seen first hand that plasma TV's aren't required for a war to go on, in my unit we had 27 Humvees, 4 worked properly, 12 had transfer case leaks, 3 had major transmission failures, 5 had major cosmetic problems (broken windshields, needed paint, etc.) and 3 had major electrical problems, that was on Nov. 25, 2002 the 2nd CEB shipped Jan 26, 2003 and the only thing we had for war was body armor.

[BlackSTX]

numbers speak for themselves

bodget overview

nasa's budget by the way is hardly a factor

by the way, a national deficit is not necessarily a unfortunate thing. deficit spending can and has been used to stimulate economic growth in the past.

taken from wikipedia:

"Following John Maynard Keynes, many economists recommend deficit spending in order to moderate or end a recession, especially a severe one. When the economy has high unemployment, an increase in government purchases create a market for business output, creating income and encouraging increases in consumer spending, which creates further increases in the demand for business output. (This is the multiplier effect). This raises the real gross domestic product (GDP) and the employment of labor, all else constant lowering the unemployment rate. (The connection between demand for GDP and unemployment is called Okun's Law.) Cutting personal taxes and/or raising transfer payments can have similar expansionary effects, though most economists would say that such policies have weaker effects on aggregate demand. On the other hand, if supply-side (non-Keynesian) effects are brought into consideration, which method has a better stimulative economic effect is a matter of debate."
[right][snapback]327441[/snapback][/right]

You should read "The Commanding Heights." Countries tried Keynes approach for about forty years after World War II and pretty much drove their economies into the ground. This includes the U.S. and U.K. Keynes theories are pretty much refuted and a guy called Hayek is accepted today. Curbing government spending was one of the best things Ronald Reagan did, and he served during the Cold War. It's also the approach Thatcher took in the U.K. That was one of the Republican ideals I agreed with. Reagan is probably turning in his grave watching the poor job Bush is doing today managing the budget. We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense, so if it's not working, we need to change some policies or strategies, not spend more. I'd rather pay high taxes than have the government run up debt. Government overspending causes inflation, i.e. higher gas prices, even though ExxonMobile makes a $25 billion profit, and higher prices on everything else, too.

This post has been edited by BlackSTX: Aug 24, 2005 - 8:55 AM