http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...-off-debt.html

You couldn't make it up.

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 12:24:44 AM UTC-8, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...-off-debt.html



You couldn't make it up.

Not as crazy as this:

http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

On Jan 10, 11:50*am, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 12:24:44 AM UTC-8, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...898/US-serious...

You couldn't make it up.

Not as crazy as this:

http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

At least the spending on the Iraq war has slowed down
to just a trickle. And if you account for the $800bil over
10 years, it's $80bil a year. The current deficit this year,
with the Iraq war long over, is $1tril. Clearly the Iraq war
is *not* the spending problem.

On Jan 10, 12:45*pm, "
wrote:
On Jan 10, 11:50*am, wrote:

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 12:24:44 AM UTC-8, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...898/US-serious....

You couldn't make it up.

Not as crazy as this:

http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

At least the spending on the Iraq war has slowed down
to just a trickle. *And if you account for the $800bil over
10 years, it's $80bil a year. * The current deficit this year,
with the Iraq war long over, is $1tril. *Clearly the Iraq war
is *not* the spending problem.

dont forget the afghanistan war

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:38:37 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

At least the spending on the Iraq war has slowed down
to just a trickle. *And if you account for the $800bil over
10 years, it's $80bil a year. * The current deficit this year,
with the Iraq war long over, is $1tril. *Clearly the Iraq war
is *not* the spending problem.

dont forget the afghanistan war

....and Libya. Troops will be sent to Africa (for some reason) this
year.

And then we have all these other wars - drugs, poverty, and something
else.

On Jan 10, 7:58*pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:38:37 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

At least the spending on the Iraq war has slowed down
to just a trickle. *And if you account for the $800bil over
10 years, it's $80bil a year. * The current deficit this year,
with the Iraq war long over, is $1tril. *Clearly the Iraq war
is *not* the spending problem.

dont forget the afghanistan war

...and Libya. *Troops will be sent to Africa (for some reason) this
year.

And then we have all these other wars - drugs, poverty, and something
else.

There was something on the box about that the other day.
Apparently the USA is deploying troops to 35 African countries. USA
worried about Chinese activities there.

http://www.africanglobe.net/africa/g...can-countries/

More expense.

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:38:37 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

On Jan 10, 12:45*pm, "
wrote:
On Jan 10, 11:50*am, wrote:

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 12:24:44 AM UTC-8, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...898/US-serious...

You couldn't make it up.

Not as crazy as this:

http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

At least the spending on the Iraq war has slowed down
to just a trickle. *And if you account for the $800bil over
10 years, it's $80bil a year. * The current deficit this year,
with the Iraq war long over, is $1tril. *Clearly the Iraq war
is *not* the spending problem.

dont forget the afghanistan war

Chump change.

On Jan 10, 4:50*pm, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 12:24:44 AM UTC-8, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...898/US-serious...

You couldn't make it up.

Not as crazy as this:

http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

You would think that cost would be falling right now.

On Jan 10, 2:35*pm, harry wrote:
On Jan 10, 4:50*pm, wrote:

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 12:24:44 AM UTC-8, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...898/US-serious....

You couldn't make it up.

Not as crazy as this:

http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

You would think that cost would be falling right now.

They are. That misleading graph is the CUMULATIVE cost
of the Iraq war. It's leveled out at about $800bil.

"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...-off-debt.html

You couldn't make it up.


I couldn't make it up either. But, Harry, This was proposed as a
tongue-in-cheek solution .

If you thought it was serious, then you have been hoodwinked.

On Jan 13, 3:16*pm, "Charlie" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...898/US-serious...

You couldn't make it up.

I couldn't make it up either. But, Harry, This was proposed as a
tongue-in-cheek solution .

If you thought it was serious, then you have been hoodwinked.

I don't think so. It is a legal dodge to get round the political
machinations between Rs and Ds.

On 1/9/2013 2:24 AM, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...-off-debt.html

You couldn't make it up.


The whole concept of money is just that. A concept.

Money used to be spices. Made more sense then. Now it's 1s and 0s on a
hard drive. We're headed for a world economy where the debt will be
meaningless.

On Jan 13, 6:46*pm, gonjah wrote:
On 1/9/2013 2:24 AM, harry wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...898/US-serious...

You couldn't make it up.

The whole concept of money is just that. A concept.

Money used to be spices. Made more sense then. Now it's 1s and 0s on a
hard drive. We're headed for a world economy where the debt will be
meaningless.

Money is not wealth.
Wealth can only be created by work.
When the government creates money (by whatever means) they are
stealing it out of your pocket because all that happens is all money
becomes worth less.
(Because wealth has not increased)
It's a government tool called inflation, done deliberately to steal
your money.
It's what the "trillion dollar" coin is all about