Why not call it a froufrillion?

10.09.2008

There's a debt clock/ticker in New York that was erected in 1989 to display our national debt. At the time, it had more than enough room to display the then-current amount of $2.7 trillion. Problem is, we've maxed out the space. We're now more than 10 trillion dollars in debt. To accommodate the need for more debt, the sign makers are adding two extra digits. Provided that first digit can go from 1-9, then it means the new ticker will be able to display almost a quadrillion dollars of debt - that's fifteen zeros. At some point the numbers become meaningless. I mean, seriously, what's another hundred trillion or so amongst friends? (Or as McCain calls us, "his fellow prisoners." Reminds me of debtors' prisons.)

Now, just to put this in a little perspective - and because you know I have to point this stuff out - Reagan, Bush the Elder and Bush the Stupider have *increased* the debt to GDP ratio by 44.4% since 1981. Clinton managed to chip away 8.8% of that before Dubya undid all his work and then some. (Granted, this is only an estimate, since Bush the Stupider still has a little bit more time to wreak havoc.) With the bailout package and the horrific state of the economy, I wonder just how high all of these numbers will climb?

Labels: , ,



[ back home ]

Comments for Why not call it a froufrillion?
I like "froufrillion"...the word sounds just as inane as the concept. Armageddon is the only thing that will balance the budget.

© 2007 - 2009 Irreverent Mother | Layout by Gecko & Fly.
Steal anything from this site and you'll be sent to your room without dinner.

Curious?

If you picture everything the Catholics say you should be, and then reverse damn near all of it, you'll have a good idea what I'm all about.

I can be loving and a pain in the ass, all in the same breath (it's my special talent). I have strong opinions, but am willing to listen to others. If you want to discuss politics or religion, finance or pop culture, .