ohboy. Here we go. Your favorite pastime. The R&R study said at 90% debt to GDP, growth declined by 2%, per year. After 120%, it was 3-5%, per year. You read that, right? So we're at 100%. By those metrics, and judging by our shitty jobs performance, we're about right on track with the other losers. In order to grow our way out of this, which is essentially what we argued all last fucking night and you conceded (and now you're arguing it again), the US would have to grow something like 4%, per year, for the next 4 years, just to break-even on the debt. Mind you, at that point, we're gonna be well over the "danger zone" mark of 120%, where growth is effectively slowed by 3-5% GDP, per year, according to Jagoff and Reinfart. What that means, is that if we're tracking on par with the other turds circling the drain, that shithead Obama will have to peg in real GDP growth rates, of 7 PERCENT, for the next 4 YEARS, just to overcome the headwind from the massive debt, AND, get us to breakeven. That's before we hit 140% debt to gdp. And yes, I pulled 140% out of my ass. But if you think we're gonna get anywhere near that without shitting the bed, you're sadly mistaken. Grow? You come at me with fucking grow our way out? This is retarded. There's NO WAY out. Look at it another way. deficit and QE = 18% of GDP. That's 18% we're IN THE HOLE BY. So we need to "Grow", 4%, per year, for the next 4 years, in real terms, just to avoid reaching 140% debt-to-gdp. At that rate, we'll probably level out at around 125% dtgdp. 4 percent real growth. Do you have any idea how many fucking jobs that is?
Don't know about nuking, but why couldn't China's implosion be US's gain? There's a certain symmetry to it, innit? China's miracle led to the overall loss of competitiveness and productive capacity in the US (and the West in general). Wouldn't it be natural to assume that the US benefits when/if China sneezes? Again, not that I am saying it has to/will happen.
and how much of the budget goes toward the so-called social safety net ie leeches? and how much goes toward defense related costs? ie giveaways to military contractor golfing buddies ? Does anyone really know the numbers?
Only one of those is listed in the Constitution as a responsibility of the federal government. Not that I don't agree with you that there is massive waste in the Defense budget and I would be the first to fault republicans for protecting it. Only one candidate wanted to cut both, Ron Paul. Too bad he isn't starting a third party. I would support a party based on tight budgets, sound money, low taxes, merchantilist trade policies, no foreign entanglements and libertarian social policies.
Translation: Lean Govt Hard money Excise taxes only No foreign entanglements..can't say it better If you are butt fucking your guy friend in your home in Georgia, you can't have the state intrude.