OMGWTFBBQ?

Remember back in the day when Clinton was president and we actually took steps, as a nation, towards balancing the budget and getting us towards a situation where we might possibly someday be able to NOT owe trillions of dollars?

Well, Congress just upped our credit line AGAIN, this time to $9.815 trillion, which according to Reuters is the fifth time the Bush administration has raised the limit. You know what the debt was when he took office? $5.6 trillion. Jesus fucking Christ. He's almost doubled the national debt in the six and some years he's been in office. Will the insanity never end? Fox pundits were just bitching recently that NASA is spending $500 million on an 8-year trip to space. Now, I agree that NASA spending could possibly be used better elsewhere, but according to 2006 reports, the war in Iraq costs nearly $2 BILLION a WEEK. I mean, come the fuck on. Let's get the hell out of Iraq and we could spend billions and billions on developing warp drives and finding sexy alien races to mate with, and we'd STILL be saving money.

Apparently, though, there's some good news to the equation that I stumbled upon while reading sites about national debt. According to this guy over at The Skeptical Optimist, the national debt is growing at a slower rate than our national GDP, which means that percentage of the GDP that our debt represents (it currently hovers around 64%, ranking us at like number 20 out of all nations for the highest debt) is, in fact, dropping. I guess this is good news overall, though it doesn't so much change my opinion of the Bush administration wasting money willy-nilly on war and stupid abstinence programs, but hey, I'm no economist, so maybe I should butt out of the debate over how much money we owe.

Heck, take Japan from that list of countries by their public (a.k.a. national) debt! They owe 175.5% of their GDP! Guess it sucks to be Japan right now.

Anyway, this website is wicked financial and Republican, but the kind of Republican that makes a lot of sense and is hard to argue. If only Bill-O and Sean Hannity weren't raving lunatic racists and could manage to spout off something mildly intriguing every once and a while. So I get all this guy's arguments about the economy, but still side more with democrats because I don't think a ragingly good economy logically leads to States providing social programs for their residents like they would have us believe. But maybe it'd get that way if we were all rich and happy; we might develop love for our neighbors? I dunno. I kinda lost my point here.

Oh right, I hate Bush and he's wasting my moneys in some desert in Iraq killing people. I'd much rather he spent the same amount feeding starving children or something socially responsible. But I guess I'll just get back to dreaming.