What part of that do you not understand?
Perhaps BHO was right.
Obama: 'Americans Are Too Stupid to Understand Economics' - YouTube
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
-- Adam Smith
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
Putting aside the silliness of placing all the blame for deficits on whoever is president at the time (after all, Congress writes the budget, all the president can do is sign/veto whatever he is given)...there's the minor fact that THE ECONOMY is larger than it has been in the history of the Republic, so of course the national debt will increase faster (in absolute dollar amounts) over time.
So yep, he was obviously correct that people are too stupid to understand economics. You certainly don't.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
I can say with a high level of certainty that defense of the nation does require some level of military presence outside the us. This doesn't mean I agree with having bases everywhere or as, large of a military as we currently possess.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
Hayek - too liberal for republicans