Obama's massive spending plan puts the Democrat-controlled Congress on track to double the national debt by 2010 - to $17.6 trillion, after just four years of controlling the national purse strings.

 

At FoxNews they tried to put $3.6 trillion in perspective:

 

If you spent $1 million an hour, non-stop for 24 hours a day, you wouldn’t run out of money for 411 years.

If you took 3.6 trillion one-dollar bills, and placed them end-to-end, that line of bills would reach from Capitol Hill to the sun and then back to Capitol Hill and then back to the sun — and then almost all the way back to Capitol Hill again.

The uncontrolled spending binge Obama and the Democrats are on -- the $800 billion so-called stimulus, the $410 billion spending bill under consideration in Congress, the tax and borrow Obama budget (spending) plan, and a doubled national debt -- is an incomprehensible amount of money.

 

Think of a trillion in terms of seconds. We all know how long a second is. A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. A trillion seconds is 31,688 years. Think of the ongoing spending orgy in terms of seconds and perhaps we can grasp what Obama and Democrats are spending and borrowing:

 

0.410 trillion seconds (Congress' proposed spending bill) is 12,992 years.

0.634 trillion seconds (Obama's down payment on health care reform) is 20,090 years.

0.787 trillion seconds (Obama's so-called stimulus) is 24,938 years.

1.75 trillion seconds (Obama's proposed deficit) is 55,454 years.

3.27 trillion seconds (the actual cost of the so-called stimulus)

3.6 trillion seconds (Obama's budget) is 114,077 years.

8.67 trillion seconds (the national debt the Democrats inherited) is 274,735 years.

17.6 trillion seconds (the projected 2010 national debt under Obama's budget) is 557,709 years.

A trillion here, a trillion there; sooner or later you run out of time.

 

Link

Link

Oh so now the Republican's have found thier fiscally conservative voice after the massive spending spree they went on. I don't know if it is sad or hypocritical.

Oh so now the Republican's have found thier fiscally conservative voice after the massive spending spree they went on. I don't know if it is sad or hypocritical.

Really ... it's amazing how they've changed their tune after eating very well at the trough from 2000-06.

Oh so now the Republican's have found thier fiscally conservative voice after the massive spending spree they went on. I don't know if it is sad or hypocritical.

 

Really ... it's amazing how they've changed their tune after eating very well at the trough from 2000-06.

 

Trust me. We conservatives in the party were not happy with this aspect of GWB's presidency.

 

We really need to get the numbers to see what the spending was in 2 year segments. (00-02, 02-04, 04-06, 06-08).

 

Without looking, I would be willing to wager that the spending in the last 2 years when the Democrats were in charge went up significantly from the previous 6.

Really ... it's amazing how they've changed their tune after eating very well at the trough from 2000-06.

 

There was a lot of hyprocisy on the Republicans part, but I believe the party was lead off track by McCain, Snow and other so-called moderates. Hopefully more fiscally minded conserveratives Republicans are taking charge of the party.

Really ... it's amazing how they've changed their tune after eating very well at the trough from 2000-06.

 

It's as amazing as the Democrats who also are singing a different tune about the size of the deficit. Where are the posters on here we've listened to for years talk about their grandchildren paying off the debts?

I read a Kathleen Parker column this morning and she talked to a former Clinton economic team member. He pointed out that the Obama plan represents spending an estimated 22% of GDP over a 10 year term.

 

That's the same level as President Reagan.

And Reagan has been hammered for his level of spending by some and praised by others. In addition, the level of spending under Bush was often lower than Clinton, yet he was hammered for the spending while Clinton was praised. That's why I say that both sides are hypocrits.

I read a Kathleen Parker column this morning and she talked to a former Clinton economic team member. He pointed out that the Obama plan represents spending an estimated 22% of GDP over a 10 year term.

 

That's the same level as President Reagan.

 

 

If I remember correctly, prior to Carter leaving office, he and a Democraticly controlled congress passed a bill allowing for 15 years of congress beeing granted automatic increases in spending. Under Reagan government revenue increased nearly doubled. However, for every $1.00 of increased revenue congress increased spending by $1.82.

 

I think the CBO estimated BHO's spending to be 27%, and that is not concidering how much his plans are going to hurt our economy.

Oh so now the Republican's have found thier fiscally conservative voice after the massive spending spree they went on. I don't know if it is sad or hypocritical.

Obama is the one being hypocritical, remember, he was the guy of change, of responsibility, of transparent government. :popcorn:

It's as amazing as the Democrats who also are singing a different tune about the size of the deficit. Where are the posters on here we've listened to for years talk about their grandchildren paying off the debts?

To be honest, I'm not exactly happy about the "stimulus package" either ... I think Congress should leave the economy alone and let the free market dictate who survives and who doesn't, perhaps with certain exceptions.

 

I think the spiraling debt is a huge threat to our economy and way of life, and that's been a big problem for the last eight years.

If I remember correctly, prior to Carter leaving office, he and a Democraticly controlled congress passed a bill allowing for 15 years of congress beeing granted automatic increases in spending. Under Reagan government revenue increased nearly doubled. However, for every $1.00 of increased revenue congress increased spending by $1.82.

 

I think the CBO estimated BHO's spending to be 27%, and that is not concidering how much his plans are going to hurt our economy.

 

The 27% is correct for the first year according to the article I read. However, the same article said it would average 22% which what it did under Reagan.

To be honest, I'm not exactly happy about the "stimulus package" either ... I think Congress should leave the economy alone and let the free market dictate who survives and who doesn't, perhaps with certain exceptions.

I think the spiraling debt is a huge threat to our economy and way of life, and that's been a big problem for the last eight years.

 

I somewhat agree with this. However if this were to transpire, it would be a very dark time in our history.

I somewhat agree with this. However if this were to transpire, it would be a very dark time in our history.

If what were to transpire?

If what were to transpire?

 

Letting the economy to correct itself.