Without The War In Iraq?

Hating is not worth the effort; bad idea.
Its like carrying a heavy weight around all the time.

I hope you boys got your free tube of KY from Obama, you're going to need it. BOHICA.

But the interest on $1 trillion is $40 billion / year (give or take) and that's a very significant part of our ongoing deficit.

I believe your estimate for the cost of the deficit is too low. Just look at how much more we pay in our mortgages when stretched out for 30 years.

Waterbaby, you are the hateful one. Your entire history of recent posting has been nothing but a series of lies and deceit. To jump in and accuse others of your own shortcoming is a typical GOP trick. I will continue to call you a retarded douche bag(no offense meant to more intelligent douche bags ). However, since you are unable to tell hate from ridicule, let me say that Im posting to you with a big fat grin on my face.

I can always drop to your level of intellect. You, alas can go no higher.

So nice to know you won't need it.... your asshole is so stretched out from enjoying the fucking you've had for the last 8 years that Palin/McCain will be able to drive an 18 wheeler in there....

BiPbear, you have jiz on your face again.

That was the yearly expense assuming a 4% long term borrowing rate. Certainly the true cost is even more staggering.

The true cost of us not going into Iraq would be even more staggering and devastating to the country.

You can dance all you want--there is no such thing as a "liberal" Republican. Face it, Fox, you were talking shit, and got busted for it. I notice you drag in the typical conservative whine about a media bias--it's easy to say that, it's a hell of a lot harder to prove it.

The most liberal person ever elected to be President of the United States was likely Franklin Roosevelt . . . but i know the conservatives have sunk to the level of hysteria and scare tactics, so i'm not surprised to see you attempting that canard, either.

By the way, Fox, it is less about wild spending habits than it is about cutting taxes for the rich supporters of the Party which have beggared the American economy. You can trot out all the slanders you want to attempt to equate Baby Bush and the Republican Congress to "tax and spend liberals" (how idiotic, all governments tax and spend), you were not so critical in the recent past. And now you even have a thread to whine about the prospect of tax increases.

More than any other factor, it was the huge give-away of tax cuts which crippled our economic prospects. All which has been spent, including the costs for the unnecessary war in Iraq, could easily have been funded if Baby Bush hadn't been so busy giving away the store.

I agree, but I just wanted to point out the fact that any "annual" interest" on the debt is small peanuts when compared to what taxpayers will end up paying on all this debt the government have accrued for our future generations - especially now when the world economy begins to crumble into disaster. Glad I'm not going to be around for the blood-bath.

Not only will our economy suffer for the next five to ten years, but that's not even touching the reduction of the debt until such time jobs return to the masses. Tax revenue for all government agencies are going to see a huge reduction for the foreseeable future, and both presidential candidates talk about "reducing taxes." Don't see any improvement in our economy or government debt in my life time.

It's all about not raising taxes and freezing spending.

A bit short of the brain power of a Chauncey Gardener with none of the charismic appeal.

Now that was rather amusing . . . although i feel the comparison denigrates Chance . . .