$109,823 per delegate.

[Gaspar]

Hillary spent more money to lose a primary than any candidate in political history.  $212 million dollars total.

Good lord!

[sgrizzle]

Ahh... Fiscal responsibility.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Ahh... Fiscal responsibility.

It pales in comparison to 13 trillion.....

But whew, are we not fortunate she will not be president!

[Gaspar]

Oh that old ditty.  National Debt numbers are meaningless unless a comparison to GDP is included.  This is the "Alarming" statistical graph that you are promoting:



When you plot it with the necessary comparison to GDP it looks something like this:




Or like this:



The GDP provides the financial ability to service the debt, so if you compare the numbers, while our debt is substantially higher than what it has been in the past, our productivity has surpassed it so much that service on the debt is far better than it was when Bush took office and substantially better than it was previously.  

Tax cuts caused an increase in US productivity by 69%.  During the Clinton years government was certainly in more fiscal control (Gingritch, Contract With America), and Bush did increase the debt by 7.3 trillion dollars over the existing 6 trillion shrinking Clinton era debt, but to present debt without presenting GDP numbers is silly and misleading.  

But I guess that's your goal.

You see, Bill Gates may owe 23 million on his home, and an additional 200 million on additional investments (hypothetical numbers) that offer a lower interest rate than the rate he can achieve through investment.  Only a moron would report that "Bill Gates is 223 million dollars in debt."  

But who knows after Vista!  []

[cannon_fodder]

If she gave me $110K I'd vote for her too.  []

Did anyone find a good number on what Obama spent?  The only stat I saw said together they spent $350 Million - so his share would have been about $138,000,000.  If that is correct, wow.  All the stuff RM and other Hillary supporters posted about how he outspent her in XYZ state goes out the window.  

My guess is her blowing money left and right early on had more to do with her campaigns financial woes than anything.  Reports ran early about the wasteful spending.  BUT, I'd be interesting to see a better # on what Obama spent.
- - -

Also, per the national debt.  It is the only thing I'd like to see more like during the Carter years.  It's not a crisis, but it has the potential.  Balance the damn budget you clowns.

[FOTD]

Who would fight the democrats over deficits for years and then turn the tables and say "it's ok now to run up enormous debt" and let's justify it by using a personal indebtedness model as a measure of comparison. They are not comparable and to do so runs counter to being fiscally responsible. I smell a repiglican!

[FOTD]

Gasbogey, betting on the continuation of productivity at these levels to bring down the deficits and debt is a dangerous bet. We be in big trouble .....

[cannon_fodder]

No one cited personal indebtedness numbers...  he sited the overall size of the economy in relation to our debt.

For example, $10,000 in credit card debt is not that big of a for someone that makes $250,000 a year.  But if someone makes $50,000 a year just servicing the debt can ruin them.  Hence, wealth is a necessary factor when examining debt.

But don't mistake that for arguing that the current deficit levels are acceptable to me.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

If she gave me $110K I'd vote for her too.  []

Me three. If someone gave me money to do nothing, I'd call myself a democrat.

On second thought, that would be kinda redundant.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Gasbogey, betting on the continuation of productivity at these levels to bring down the deficits and debt is a dangerous bet. We be in big trouble .....

We will be in big trouble, but not from this debt.  From the debt that will be caused by an energy shortage.  No fueley no producey!

I don't condone the way Bush spent money.  He was far more fiscally liberal than anyone anticipated.  He took a rule from the Regan play book and grew the economy by emancipating people financially.  That was his only big achievement.  

Had he done that and curbed spending at the same time, this would be a very different country.

"Vriend van de duivel" You forget that Clinton put us in 3 quarters of negative growth.  We haven't had one under Bush (though you keep telling us we're in a recession).

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Gasbogey, betting on the continuation of productivity at these levels to bring down the deficits and debt is a dangerous bet. We be in big trouble .....

I don't condone the way Bush spent money.  He was far more fiscally liberal than anyone anticipated.  He took a rule from the Regan play book and grew the economy by emancipating people financially.  That was his only big achievement.  

Had he done that and curbed spending at the same time, this would be a very different country.

Blame the Iraq war.

Wars are expensive. Poorly conceived wars are even more expensive.

If you want to know why the deficits ballooned on his watch, there's the big reason.

[cannon_fodder]

+1 rwarn.

I'm still not anti-war in the classical sense and I defended the decision.  But it phase III was poorly planed.  Clearly no one really thought what to do with the country once we took it over.

But, I digress...  if we want/need to be in a war, we need to do all we can to pay for it now.  Raise a "war tax" if need be.  But running a deficit as a wealthy country is just stupid when we *could* pay our own way. It'd be like putting your mortgage on a credit card when you could have cashed our a CD, and then staying a month behind in perpetuity just so you can destroy your credit rating and rack up tons of interest.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

+1 rwarn.

I'm still not anti-war in the classical sense and I defended the decision.  But it phase III was poorly planed.  Clearly no one really thought what to do with the country once we took it over.

But, I digress...  if we want/need to be in a war, we need to do all we can to pay for it now.  Raise a "war tax" if need be.  But running a deficit as a wealthy country is just stupid when we *could* pay our own way. It'd be like putting your mortgage on a credit card when you could have cashed our a CD, and then staying a month behind in perpetuity just so you can destroy your credit rating and rack up tons of interest.

Very true.  I also believe that it is nearly impossible to fight a theocracy.  Faith is stronger than blood or steel, and nearly impossible to destroy!

[FOTD]

It's fun to watch the coming around to my point of irresponsible government management by the repiglicans.....but you don't have to openly admit it. One can easily see the deceptive denials turn into mea culpas.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

Hillary spent more money to lose a primary than any candidate in political history.  $212 million dollars total.

Good lord!

I realize that you will just continue to hate on Hillary, even after the race is over.

Truth is, Obama has spent and raised more than Hillary. His delegates per dollar are almost exactly the same as Hillary's. As of April 30th he had spent spent 224 million dollars.

That is just what it costs to compete in a national race these days. And once, again, whoever spends the most wins.

You are just jealous, Gaspar. Your candidate can't raise any money in comparison.