Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is the problem. It already IS true. Basic accounting tells you that in the future we owe $80 Trillion...the fact that nobody has knocked on your door yet and asked you for it doesn't mean that it is not a true state of affairs.
I disagree and I'd really rather not discuss this with you.
Unfortunately I dont see McCain or Obama as being too different when it comes to our military expenditures. We have too many troops in too many countries costing us BILLIONS every year.
Obama wants to put a timeline on troops in iraq and move them to afag..
thats better than mccain who says he will have us in war 100 years. and keep surging until he 'wins' when he doesnt explain what 'winning is'.
Clinton Balanced the budget, payed on the debt, and still had good social programs, and the biggest economic boom in history
getting us out of the recession reagan and bush had us in. This mess can be sorted out but NOT with McCain and NOT using
trickle down.
Sorry, I dont care about the charts you posted, they are backwards looking...the future of things in the link that I posted should be more of concern rather than partisan politics trying to prove who spent what.
Obama wants to put a timeline on troops in iraq and move them to afag..
thats better than mccain who says he will have us in war 100 years. and keep surging until he 'wins' when he doesnt explain what 'winning is'.
But we will still have billions spent with troops in 1/2 the countries in the world with either candidate. We need to stop spending that money and focus on our problems here at home before we try to police the world.
Sorry, I dont care about the charts you posted, they are backwards looking...the future of things in the link that I posted should be more of concern rather than partisan politics trying to prove who spent what.
?? you brought it up not me, saying we cant afford health care because it would cost too much money and make a deficit.
We already DO pay more than it will cost to get health care for all.
Then you say oh we cant because we already OWE bush's deficit..
We can balance our budget and stop adding more to the deficit and pay on it.
And still do good thing with healtcare. Its been proven. Under clinton,
children now can have healthcare that had none before, and the same things were said then "you cant do it".
Well he did and still balanced the budget.
But we will still have billions spent with troops in 1/2 the countries in the world with either candidate. We need to stop spending that money and focus on our problems here at home before we try to police the world.
I dont think I disagree with that and neither does Obama to my knowledge.
?? you brought it up not me, saying we cant afford health care because it would cost too much money and make a deficit.
We already DO pay more than it will cost to get health care for all.
Then you say oh we cant because we already OWE bush's deficit..
We can balance our budget and stop adding more to the deficit. And still do good thing with healtcare. Its been proven.
youre just not listening is all
Oh, I'm listening, but do you have any idea how long it would take us to pay off the bush deficit issues and get Social Security and Medicare to a point where they are not a giant drain on all of our financial resources? The last thing we need is to add a larger program to this. We need to get our house in order before we start a program like this...IF it is even financially possible.
I dont think I disagree with that and neither does Obama to my knowledge.
I have never heard Obama talk about bringing troops home from other countries. We have them all over the world...Im not just talking about where GWB put them because of the terrists'
You would rather not discuss the reality of an $80 Trillion liability and how it impacts our ability to have universal health care.
No. I would just rather not discuss this with someone who conveniently dismisses the past and rather obviously selects prognosticating about the future for the sake of winning "debate". It's a gotcha situation, since it's all based on speculation.
This is not debate, it's conjecture masquerading as fact.
I guess it's ignore button time now, because I asked nicely a couple times already.
You have nothing intellectually substantive to offer. I'd be better off arguing with an old lady reading tea leaves.
Ciao.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
