Discuss.

When I saw "Meltdown" in the title, I thought you were referencing the potential financial endgame from the long-term danger of holding a $16 trillion dollar (and growing) debt. A far more important matter than sore losers on a message board, I gather.

Neither candidate would give me much reason to celebrate, regardless of who won. Rather, I just close my eyes and hope the winner makes good or better decisions than the ones we've seen during Obama's first term and both of Bush's term.

I understand. I thought the same when Reagan run the debt up from 1 Trillion to 4 Trillion. Can you imagine a president doing that??

(11-07-2012 12:34 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I understand. I thought the same when Reagan run the debt up from 1 Trillion to 4 Trillion. Can you imagine a president doing that??

3 trillion in 8 years =/= 7 trillion in 4.

(11-07-2012 12:34 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I understand. I thought the same when Reagan run the debt up from 1 Trillion to 4 Trillion. Can you imagine a president doing that??

Actually, it went from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion in two terms. I'm not condoning it, but comparing that to $10 trillion to $16 trillion in one term...

(11-07-2012 12:42 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 12:34 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I understand. I thought the same when Reagan run the debt up from 1 Trillion to 4 Trillion. Can you imagine a president doing that??

Actually, it went from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion in two terms. I'm not condoning it, but comparing that to $10 trillion to $16 trillion in one term...

Yes, it's actually a higher percentage growth.

So if a president amped up a national debt from $1 to $100, he'd put both Reagan and Obama to shame in his fiscal incompetence, based on the % increase.