Just so I'm clear on this as I was the first to reply to your defense budget nearly doubling statement...

When you wrote, "It still does not excuse the 685 Billion spent this year alone & set to go twice that next year....1.2 TRILLION" what you meant was that the 685 figure is purely what they call defense, and the 1.2 trillion is defense PLUS the other lines in the budget that you believe should be under Defense? Those are two different things. That's like saying my vacation is twice as expensive this year because last year it cost $1000 (just the plane ticket) and this year cost $2000 (the plane ticket, hotel, food, transport, museums, hookers, souvenirs, etc).

Yes basically I should have given you the true amount for the first year as well.

Just because Gates & his cronies think you are stupid enough to believe those things are not DOD if they list them separately in the budget does not mean I think you are stupid.

I know you can handle the truth & should have given this years truth to you right off. I know you can look at that list of next years expenses & see clearly they are in fact DOD...

These are not things I believe should be under DOD.... terrorism & "other" defense related expenses. Also the interest is not created out of thin air. It is the result from these expenses....period

( They are also on this years sheet) If that is not DOD what is??

Now chucke is another story...he cant handle the truth

So keep this to yourself

I know I said my last post was the end but this weaseling post of flying's is too much for me.

He now admits he "should" have said lots of things. My argument is what did he really say and how long did it take him to realize he "should" have said something else.

He further goes on to say he "believes" other agencies' budgets should be allocated to DOD because they might or might not be related to defense spending. This argument borders on the ridiculous. Let's look at some other items he might want to throw into the mix besides the FBI, NASA and Homeland Security. He has already included them in the mix because he "believes" their budget should be allocated as DOD related.

How about the Department of Health since soldiers are injured in war or peacetime accidents and might require use of their facilities?

How about Department of Transportation since military vehicles use our national highways?

Department of Energy? Yep, we got lights at the Pentagon.

Department of Education? Sure, our high schools and colleges educate the military in their formative years.

There are 23 separate departments or agencies outlined in the White House budget for 2011. Need I go on?

He closes with this little gem of sarcasm....

"Now chucke is another story...he cant handle the truth

So keep this to yourself"

I have two points about this simple statement.

I have, in the past, requested Flying to call me by my name rather than a derivative of that name. He still must believe it bothers me or he wouldn't keep doing it. Childish minds work that way.

The second point is...Chuck can handle the truth when it is written or spoken. Flying has done neither until now.

For example.

Ireland today has a problem. How big is the Irish economy? Can we compare it to the US economy. No, Ireland's economy is about the size of Minnesota. Minnesota is a relatively small agricultural state in the Midwest of America.

How much is Ireland's external debt? Not much really in terms of cash for the US but for Ireland it is a big number. How do I know this? I look at the Economist. Ireland's external debt is 1000% (will it sink the Euro?). Is that bad? The U K's external debt is 416% . Is that bad? The Netherlands is 416%. Austria is 212%. Portugal is 223%.

I think it is fair to say that the above countries have been borrowing a bit too much money.

Now for all those big budget items and the silly wars and all the useless expenditures what is the U S's external debt?

Anybody want to guess? It is 98%.

A wealthy English friend was telling me he was concerned about the size of the US debt. I told him we are a rich country and it isn't as bad as it looks to these smaller countries. For example, if something happened and I needed ten thousand dollars, that would (to put in polite terms) put a real hurt on me financially because I'm poor by expat standards. I asked how much it would hurt him if he needed that amount. He replied, "I see what you mean".

Thank you for understanding. You said it better than I could have. That is of course exactly the point I have been trying to make.

I know I said my last post was the end but this weaseling post of flying's is too much for me.

:lol:

Sorry old timer didnt mean to pop your arteries

The things I listed are public record & are defense related.

FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.

International Affairs $10.1–$54.2 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget

Energy Department, defense-related $20.9 billion

Veterans Affairs $66.2 billion

Homeland Security $54.7 billion

NASA, satellites $3.4–$8.5 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget

Veterans pensions $58.4 billion

Other defense-related mandatory spending $7.5 billion

Interest on debt incurred in past wars $57.7–$228.1 billion Between 23% and 91% of total interest

lights at the pentagon? ? maybe your old job of changing them your thinking of?

That aside your 680 or so Billion is off quite a but too isnt it?

Yes that is public record on the gov sites too.

Chill go hit some balls before you drop dead over a forum post.

For example.

Ireland today has a problem. How big is the Irish economy? Can we compare it to the US economy. No, Ireland's economy is about the size of Minnesota. Minnesota is a relatively small agricultural state in the Midwest of America.

How much is Ireland's external debt? Not much really in terms of cash for the US but for Ireland it is a big number. How do I know this? I look at the Economist. Ireland's external debt is 1000% (will it sink the Euro?). Is that bad? The U K's external debt is 416% . Is that bad? The Netherlands is 416%. Austria is 212%. Portugal is 223%.

I think it is fair to say that the above countries have been borrowing a bit too much money.

Now for all those big budget items and the silly wars and all the useless expenditures what is the U S's external debt?

Anybody want to guess? It is 98%.

A wealthy English friend was telling me he was concerned about the size of the US debt. I told him we are a rich country and it isn't as bad as it looks to these smaller countries. For example, if something happened and I needed ten thousand dollars, that would (to put in polite terms) put a real hurt on me financially because I'm poor by expat standards. I asked how much it would hurt him if he needed that amount. He replied, "I see what you mean".

Thank you for understanding. You said it better than I could have. That is of course exactly the point I have been trying to make.

And my point is that your apple is still sour, no matter how more sour some of the othe apples are.

As a qualified econimist and educator, surely you should be able to impart the benefit of your wisdom to this humble ignoramus and tell my why your apple is so sweet.

For example.

Ireland today has a problem. How big is the Irish economy? Can we compare it to the US economy. No, Ireland's economy is about the size of Minnesota. Minnesota is a relatively small agricultural state in the Midwest of America.

How much is Ireland's external debt? Not much really in terms of cash for the US but for Ireland it is a big number. How do I know this? I look at the Economist. Ireland's external debt is 1000% (will it sink the Euro?). Is that bad? The U K's external debt is 416% . Is that bad? The Netherlands is 416%. Austria is 212%. Portugal is 223%.

I think it is fair to say that the above countries have been borrowing a bit too much money.

Now for all those big budget items and the silly wars and all the useless expenditures what is the U S's external debt?

Anybody want to guess? It is 98%.

A wealthy English friend was telling me he was concerned about the size of the US debt. I told him we are a rich country and it isn't as bad as it looks to these smaller countries. For example, if something happened and I needed ten thousand dollars, that would (to put in polite terms) put a real hurt on me financially because I'm poor by expat standards. I asked how much it would hurt him if he needed that amount. He replied, "I see what you mean".

Thank you for understanding. You said it better than I could have. That is of course exactly the point I have been trying to make.

And my point is that your apple is still sour, no matter how more sour some of the othe apples are.

As a qualified econimist and educator, surely you should be able to impart the benefit of your wisdom to this humble ignoramus and tell my why your apple is so sweet.

Ask koheesti. I give up. I just can't communicate with you. I have had students like that. I am sure it was my fault. Sorry

Ask koheesti. I give up. I just can't communicate with you. I have had students like that. I am sure it was my fault. Sorry

Kudos to you for your admission of inadequate ability (as a qualified educator). It's ok, I forgive you. I'll try and understand from a different source in future.

I'm gald to hear that you are sure it was/is your fault. Kudos for that admission.

Ask koheesti. I give up. I just can't communicate with you. I have had students like that. I am sure it was my fault. Sorry

Kudos to you for your admission of inadequate ability (as a qualified educator). It's ok, I forgive you. I'll try and understand from a different source in future.

I'm gald to hear that you are sure it was/is your fault. Kudos for that admission.

Talk about coincidences - I was just going to send you kudos for your admission to being an ignoramus. With a of course.

Ask koheesti. I give up. I just can't communicate with you. I have had students like that. I am sure it was my fault. Sorry

Kudos to you for your admission of inadequate ability (as a qualified educator). It's ok, I forgive you. I'll try and understand from a different source in future.

I'm gald to hear that you are sure it was/is your fault. Kudos for that admission.

Talk about coincidences - I was just going to send you kudos for your admission to being an ignoramus. With a of course.

Yes.

Thanks for awarding me kudos. I accept.

For example.

Ireland today has a problem. How big is the Irish economy? Can we compare it to the US economy. No, Ireland's economy is about the size of Minnesota. Minnesota is a relatively small agricultural state in the Midwest of America.

How much is Ireland's external debt? Not much really in terms of cash for the US but for Ireland it is a big number. How do I know this? I look at the Economist. Ireland's external debt is 1000% (will it sink the Euro?). Is that bad? The U K's external debt is 416% . Is that bad? The Netherlands is 416%. Austria is 212%. Portugal is 223%.

I think it is fair to say that the above countries have been borrowing a bit too much money.

Now for all those big budget items and the silly wars and all the useless expenditures what is the U S's external debt?

Anybody want to guess? It is 98%.

A wealthy English friend was telling me he was concerned about the size of the US debt. I told him we are a rich country and it isn't as bad as it looks to these smaller countries. For example, if something happened and I needed ten thousand dollars, that would (to put in polite terms) put a real hurt on me financially because I'm poor by expat standards. I asked how much it would hurt him if he needed that amount. He replied, "I see what you mean".

Thank you for understanding. You said it better than I could have. That is of course exactly the point I have been trying to make.

And my point is that your apple is still sour, no matter how more sour some of the othe apples are.

As a qualified econimist and educator, surely you should be able to impart the benefit of your wisdom to this humble ignoramus and tell my why your apple is so sweet.

because i have many of them and even if they are sour i can turn them into something useful.

i know in the past that i have made my statement regarding the amount of funding the military infrastructor recieves and imho it is the way that the USA operates a "working" welfare system. many countries choose to simply tax the working people and provide very generious "social service" programs. The USA is not one of those countries, the american way although rapidly changing is still based in the culture of agriculture; if you want to eat, get out of bed and go to work. the military machine allows all those union jobs at the UAW, Teamsters, etc... to keep thier $70.00 dollar per hour jobs along with the many threads that supply the military forces.

i know in the past that i have made my statement regarding the amount of funding the military infrastructor recieves and imho it is the way that the USA operates a "working" welfare system. many countries choose to simply tax the working people and provide very generious "social service" programs. The USA is not one of those countries, the american way although rapidly changing is still based in the culture of agriculture; if you want to eat, get out of bed and go to work. the military machine allows all those union jobs at the UAW, Teamsters, etc... to keep thier $70.00 dollar per hour jobs along with the many threads that supply the military forces.

I think the sour apples are line items in the budget.

It is kind of like when your foolish wife wants to buy something foolish. If it is a 5 baht hair ribbon, who cares that she already has ten ribbons. If it is a pair of Gucci shoes and she already has ten pair then it becomes a problem.

The only way that you can know, is to know the price in terms of percent personal finances.

To some the Gucci shoes might be like the hair ribbon. Dumb because she already has a closet full but still acceptable because it is a relatively small percent of your fortune.

What seems to be the stumbling block is admitting that the real value of the item needs to be known. You see if the value is known then it can be compared with items of like value in other countries budgets and that is not acceptable when trying to point out the foolishness of buying a pair of Gucci shoes.

It is foolish of the US to sell bonds (borrow money) to support foolish wars and it will drive the economy broke. It is uncomfortable to the adversary to point out that the level of debt is only a fraction of other countries .

I understand what you are saying about the military industrial complex funding economic growth but that is way beyond the level of understand of some people here. They still don't understand the relationship between 90% external debt and 400% external debt. A country with 90% external debt(US) does not spend money in the same way as a country with 400% (UK) debt.

The woman who wants the Gucci shoes knows how much hubby has in the bank and is nonplussed at buying the shoes but hubby is oblivious to his bank account and only sees the price of the shoes. In this situation the woman is the economist and hubby the uneducated and ill informed lout.

The Fed chairman is finding the same problems explaining to congress just what the heck is doing.

I know I said my last post was the end but this weaseling post of flying's is too much for me.

:lol:

Sorry old timer didnt mean to pop your arteries

The things I listed are public record & are defense related.

FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.

International Affairs $10.1–$54.2 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget

Energy Department, defense-related $20.9 billion

Veterans Affairs $66.2 billion

Homeland Security $54.7 billion

NASA, satellites $3.4–$8.5 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget

Veterans pensions $58.4 billion

Other defense-related mandatory spending $7.5 billion

Interest on debt incurred in past wars $57.7–$228.1 billion Between 23% and 91% of total interest

lights at the pentagon? ? maybe your old job of changing them your thinking of?

That aside your 680 or so Billion is off quite a but too isnt it?

Yes that is public record on the gov sites too.

Chill go hit some balls before you drop dead over a forum post.

Nope, I never changed any light bulbs. I hired Liberals for that job.

Now give us a link or some sort of proof for the following allegations:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What about...

DOD spending $721.3 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations"

FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.

International Affairs $10.1–$54.2 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget

Energy Department, defense-related $20.9 billion

Veterans Affairs $66.2 billion

Homeland Security $54.7 billion

NASA, satellites $3.4–$8.5 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget

Veterans pensions $58.4 billion

Other defense-related mandatory spending $7.5 billion

Interest on debt incurred in past wars $57.7–$228.1 billion Between 23% and 91% of total interest

Total Spending $1.003–$1.223 trillion

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

moveon.org and the Huffington Report would not be acceptable proof.

I'm not having any seizure over this but it seems you can't simply admit you were wrong in your first and second post to Koheesti.

I won't call you a liar as some people tend to do. I won't stoop to such depths. Just stubborn would be how I would describe your actions in this little matter.

I don't really think the Republicans won it so much as the Democrats lost it.

The Dems had the bully pulpit, the incumbents, most of the main stream media and the triumvirate of Pelosi, Reid and Obama yet they still couldn't win.

It was because of Obama's policies!

i know in the past that i have made my statement regarding the amount of funding the military infrastructor recieves and imho it is the way that the USA operates a "working" welfare system. many countries choose to simply tax the working people and provide very generious "social service" programs. The USA is not one of those countries, the american way although rapidly changing is still based in the culture of agriculture; if you want to eat, get out of bed and go to work. the military machine allows all those union jobs at the UAW, Teamsters, etc... to keep thier $70.00 dollar per hour jobs along with the many threads that supply the military forces.

I think the sour apples are line items in the budget.

It is kind of like when your foolish wife wants to buy something foolish. If it is a 5 baht hair ribbon, who cares that she already has ten ribbons. If it is a pair of Gucci shoes and she already has ten pair then it becomes a problem.

The only way that you can know, is to know the price in terms of percent personal finances.

To some the Gucci shoes might be like the hair ribbon. Dumb because she already has a closet full but still acceptable because it is a relatively small percent of your fortune.

What seems to be the stumbling block is admitting that the real value of the item needs to be known. You see if the value is known then it can be compared with items of like value in other countries budgets and that is not acceptable when trying to point out the foolishness of buying a pair of Gucci shoes.

It is foolish of the US to sell bonds (borrow money) to support foolish wars and it will drive the economy broke. It is uncomfortable to the adversary to point out that the level of debt is only a fraction of other countries .

I understand what you are saying about the military industrial complex funding economic growth but that is way beyond the level of understand of some people here. They still don't understand the relationship between 90% external debt and 400% external debt. A country with 90% external debt(US) does not spend money in the same way as a country with 400% (UK) debt.

The woman who wants the Gucci shoes knows how much hubby has in the bank and is nonplussed at buying the shoes but hubby is oblivious to his bank account and only sees the price of the shoes. In this situation the woman is the economist and hubby the uneducated and ill informed lout.

The Fed chairman is finding the same problems explaining to congress just what the heck is doing.

Enough of the US bashing! I'm sick and tired of all you anti-Americans.

Nope, I never changed any light bulbs. I hired Liberals for that job.

Now give us a link or some sort of proof for the following allegations:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What about...

DOD spending $721.3 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations"

FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.

International Affairs $10.1–$54.2 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget

Energy Department, defense-related $20.9 billion

Veterans Affairs $66.2 billion

Homeland Security $54.7 billion

NASA, satellites $3.4–$8.5 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget

Veterans pensions $58.4 billion

Other defense-related mandatory spending $7.5 billion

Interest on debt incurred in past wars $57.7–$228.1 billion Between 23% and 91% of total interest

Total Spending $1.003–$1.223 trillion

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Whats this? Now you want links?

In your last post you were on about schools highways etc.

You keep talking bout my 2nd post etc to koheesti yet you never looked at that chart attached?

That has many spending by categories mentioned same as in my post. You know the total you see the percentages....A calculator will get you the rest

Just go search 2011 defense budget USA you will find what you need.

Even Wiki has it.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

If you have time & love minutia.....& we know you do

Check out the refs at the bottom. Many interesting pdf's

The only thing not on my list & they do not list either is the billions they spend on KBR or blackwater ooops they changed their name due to the bad press to Xe Services LLC.......hahaha that has to make you laugh eh? A Limited Liability Corp as a military replacement

I actually heard they cannot get past the bad press now & the company is for sale.

Actually ....perhaps they are the 7.5 billion "Other defense-related mandatory spending" ??

Your a weird dude chuck because at the end of the day is it a surprise that these things cost as they do?

The question/problem is not the number as we all agree....at least the sane ones....That it is a ridiculous number.

More so these days as the middle class is being wiped out in America & the banks/wall street gets hundreds of millions in bonuses.

The paper fiat is worth less & less & in the end all the folks trying to live off fixed retirement incomes will be among the first to fold.

Which is why I always wonder when I see old folks cheer leading insane spending of dollars that do not exist. Especially considering the reason they are spending these dollars they do not have.Chasing a ghost in caves?...really?

Osama bin Laden said he is trying to bankrupt the U.S. through its war on terror...I never would have thought we would fall for it.

But if waving the pom poms is what makes your day...have at it.

Nope, I never changed any light bulbs. I hired Liberals for that job.

Now give us a link or some sort of proof for the following allegations:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What about...

DOD spending $721.3 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations"

FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.

International Affairs $10.1–$54.2 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget

Energy Department, defense-related $20.9 billion

Veterans Affairs $66.2 billion

Homeland Security $54.7 billion

NASA, satellites $3.4–$8.5 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget

Veterans pensions $58.4 billion

Other defense-related mandatory spending $7.5 billion

Interest on debt incurred in past wars $57.7–$228.1 billion Between 23% and 91% of total interest

Total Spending $1.003–$1.223 trillion

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Whats this? Now you want links?

In your last post you were on about schools highways etc.

You keep talking bout my 2nd post etc to koheesti yet you never looked at that chart attached?

That has many spending by categories mentioned same as in my post. You know the total you see the percentages....A calculator will get you the rest

Just go search 2011 defense budget USA you will find what you need.

Even Wiki has it.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

If you have time & love minutia.....& we know you do

Check out the refs at the bottom. Many interesting pdf's

The only thing not on my list & they do not list either is the billions they spend on KBR or blackwater ooops they changed their name due to the bad press to Xe Services LLC.......hahaha that has to make you laugh eh? A Limited Liability Corp as a military replacement

I actually heard they cannot get past the bad press now & the company is for sale.

Actually ....perhaps they are the 7.5 billion "Other defense-related mandatory spending" ??

Your a weird dude chuck because at the end of the day is it a surprise that these things cost as they do?

The question/problem is not the number as we all agree....at least the sane ones....That it is a ridiculous number.

More so these days as the middle class is being wiped out in America & the banks/wall street gets hundreds of millions in bonuses.

The paper fiat is worth less & less & in the end all the folks trying to live off fixed retirement incomes will be among the first to fold.

Which is why I always wonder when I see old folks cheer leading insane spending of dollars that do not exist. Especially considering the reason they are spending these dollars they do not have.Chasing a ghost in caves?...really?

Osama bin Laden said he is trying to bankrupt the U.S. insert

Barak Obama

Why did the great depression happen?

What brought America out of the great depression?

The answer to the first question is the same as the second question except in the reverse.

Roosevelt spent money America did not have is the answer to the second question.

Of course WW II helped but America was basically out of the depression before its entry into the war in 1941.

I believe this is your point and echoed by

Paul Martin, the Minister of Finance for Canada from 1993 to 2002 and Prime Minister from 2003 to 2006.

It is important to understand that the no-deficit rule was a sharp break with tradition. In the postwar years, many economists argued that you did not need to be in the black every year, as long as budgets were balanced over the course of the economic cycle, so that deficits during slumps would be paid off with surpluses in good years. Whatever the economic rationale for that approach, it didn't work in the real world of politicians. Once you break the spell--once governments find that they can get away with borrowing instead of taxing to pay the bills--it is almost impossibly tempting for politicians to do it again and again until the debt is out of control.

As I mentioned before I studied under Abba Lerner in college. A great deal of insight to the argument can be gained by reading, “Was Keynes a Keynesian.”

During their conversations Lerner asked Keynes why not just print money? Keynes replied, “It is the art of statesmanship to tell lies, but they must be plausible lies.”

Lerner first met Keynes at Cambridge BTW.

These are the men whose ideas are shaping American economic policy right now.

To understand what is going on an understanding of Keynes and Lerner is essential before you can discuss the specifics of budgets intelligently.

But if waving the pom poms is what makes your day...have at it.

To understand what is going on an understanding of Keynes and Lerner is essential before you can discuss the specifics of budgets intelligently.

Who said we agree with any of it?To discuss its stupidity is redundant.

Perhaps instead to understand you would do better to study elsewhere?

Maybe here?

http://mises.org/

Our govt has taught us our whole life to be responsible...Live within our means, Pay what you owe...If you cant afford it you get a loan based on your income or ....gasp lay away

Yet the example they set is in line with what?

To understand what is going on an understanding of Keynes and Lerner is essential before you can discuss the specifics of budgets intelligently.

Who said we agree with any of it?To discuss its stupidity is redundant.

Perhaps instead to understand you would do better to study elsewhere?

Maybe here?

http://mises.org/

Our govt has taught us our whole life to be responsible...Live within our means, Pay what you owe...If you cant afford it you get a loan based on your income or ....gasp lay away

Yet the example they set is in line with what?

What government? The great depression was caused by people like you. Since you don't know anything about it. You want it to happen again.

It is difficult to discuss anything with a person who does not have a grasp of the topic. If common sense and folk wisdom were enough there would be no London School of Economics.

What government? The great depression was caused by people like you. Since you don't know anything about it. You want it to happen again.

It is difficult to discuss anything with a person who does not have a grasp of the topic. If common sense and folk wisdom were enough there would be no London School of Economics.

Oh that is rich...dumb but rich...It is People like YOU that have us where we are now & YOU have the nerve to utter that drivel

Tell you what clean up you & yours mess first then talk about others

What government? The great depression was caused by people like you. Since you don't know anything about it. You want it to happen again.

It is difficult to discuss anything with a person who does not have a grasp of the topic. If common sense and folk wisdom were enough there would be no London School of Economics.

Oh that is rich...dumb but rich...It is People like YOU that have us where we are now & YOU have the nerve to utter that drivel

Tell you what clean up you & yours mess first then talk about others

What mess. The national foreign debt of the UK is four times the size of the US debt.

What mess. The national foreign debt of the UK is four times the size of the US debt.

What?

Your Bashing the UK now?

Mods.....Mods..... :lol:

What mess. The national foreign debt of the UK is four times the size of the US debt.

What?

Your Bashing the UK now?

Mods.....Mods..... :lol:

Do you have an answer?

What mess. The national foreign debt of the UK is four times the size of the US debt.

What?

Your Bashing the UK now?

Mods.....Mods..... :lol:

Do you have an answer?

Who wants to swap subjects now?

Do I care about the UK? Is my grandkids to be burdened with the UK debt?

Is it a Keynesian tactic to say ...well others are more facked up then us so we are fine?

Last I looked the Uk was about 4 trillion behind us....but again...Do I care?.....NO...Even if they were ahead do I care? ....NO

Gnite...Late here in the Good old USA

You said, “Tell you what clean up you & yours mess first then talk about others .”

I said, It is already clean. The others are all worse.

To understand what is going on an understanding of Keynes and Lerner is essential before you can discuss the specifics of budgets intelligently.

Who said we agree with any of it?To discuss its stupidity is redundant.

Perhaps instead to understand you would do better to study elsewhere?

Maybe here?

http://mises.org/

Our govt has taught us our whole life to be responsible...Live within our means, Pay what you owe...If you cant afford it you get a loan based on your income or ....gasp lay away

Yet the example they set is in line with what?

What government? The great depression was caused by people like you. Since you don't know anything about it. You want it to happen again.

It is difficult to discuss anything with a person who does not have a grasp of the topic. If common sense and folk wisdom were enough there would be no London School of Economics.

But....as well as being a highly qualified economist, you are also a highly qualified educator.

As such, surely you can formulate a way to impart some of your economic wisdom?

You said, “Tell you what clean up you & yours mess first then talk about others .”

I said, It is already clean. The others are all worse.

Be sure & let all the taxpayers on the hook know will you

Also with your line of thinking I guess Viktor Bout is clean too since there are many worse eh?

It is difficult to discuss anything with a person who does not have a grasp of the topic. If common sense and folk wisdom were enough there would be no London School of Economics.

But....as well as being a highly qualified economist,

They (economist) like to presume they know all. They fail to grasp there are many intelligent people that dont accept their models at all.

They like to pretend theirs is based in a mathematically proven model that has to be accepted as the truth.

Yet the only thing they have proven is their utter failure since their inception.

That someone they deem a non-economist<sic> does not want to discuss obvious stupidity does not imply the person does not see how stupid it is/was.

This is not an easy pill for a person who spent their time or much of their life studying flawed logic & accepting it as religious fact.

That they now hold a degree in the art of our demise & think they are qualified is the aberration.

Yet the best some can now do is to claim as always....well there are others that are worse off so we are fine

To understand what is going on an understanding of Keynes and Lerner is essential before you can discuss the specifics of budgets intelligently.

Who said we agree with any of it?To discuss its stupidity is redundant.

Perhaps instead to understand you would do better to study elsewhere?

Maybe here?

http://mises.org/

Our govt has taught us our whole life to be responsible...Live within our means, Pay what you owe...If you cant afford it you get a loan based on your income or ....gasp lay away

Yet the example they set is in line with what?

What government? The great depression was caused by people like you. Since you don't know anything about it. You want it to happen again.

It is difficult to discuss anything with a person who does not have a grasp of the topic. If common sense and folk wisdom were enough there would be no London School of Economics.

But....as well as being a highly qualified economist, you are also a highly qualified educator.

As such, surely you can formulate a way to impart some of your economic wisdom?

An amazing teacher can sit in the forest and talk all day to a tree. The tree still will not understand. After a while the teacher stops trying because he realizes trees don't learn and will never change their behavior.