Re: (OT) Hard Times Ahead?

bill horne wrote:



Is 65% "much" - or not? If not, why not?


I can always count on bill to cut to the chase and not be distracted by bull*** lies and attempts to change the subject.

That question is exactly what all of this crap comes down to.
When a Congressman makes a stupid statement like "a billion here and a billion there, and petty soon you are talking REAL money", the whole world laughs at him knowing that he is a complete idiot.

We have our own GBinNC, backed up by Hugh and others, claiming that 270 billion dollars PER YEAR (for the record, that comes to one trillion six hundred and twenty billion dollars over the six years of the war, but GB thinks it's not much) isn't "much," and are ridiculing me for THEIR stupidity.

I just, by God, love it. What maroons.

The original idiot made the claim that each family in America has gone in debt to the tune of $40,000. because of the cost of the war. I took him to task because his number was dead wrong. The OP admitted that the correct number was really $4,000, thus proving my original point correct.

Over 100 posts later, GB is still lying about what I wrote, while the original poster has long since slunk off with his mistake.

ATTENTION GB. Is $1,620,000,000,000. "much" money?

If not, would you please write me a check for that amount?
I think you won't because it's "too much."
That amount is what we spent on defense in the year 2000, multiplied by the 6 years of the war. It's what we would have spent on defense during the 6 years of the war, had there been no war, and had there been no inflation, or growth of the federal budget. It was included in the OPs silly and erroneous number.

GB might be silly enough to believe that Congress would not have spent MORE THAN THAT, but I'm not.

Lon
.