How Will The U.S. Pay For War With North Korea?

[Kondor3]

...Yes. Don't go to war.

Good idea.

Let's ignore Chuckle's --- the 3rd-generation Hermit King's --- first baby-steps into the world of nuclear-tipped ICBMs.

Let's wait until Kim Jong Fat-Boy has a rock-solid 200 or 300 or 400 weapon intercontinental nuclear arsenal capable of destroying Western Civilization.

Let's not bother the little baby snake.

Let's wait until it's actually grown fangs and reaches full length before we are forced to chop its head off.

Yeah... that's the ticket...

Oh, by the way, your psychic medium called, and left a message, saying that she's made contact with another ghost, perfect for you to channel...

We can always count on statists who think politicians should take the nation to war, causing massive death and destruction all for nothing...well not nothing. War is always about the health of the State....hence statists love it.

Or maybe you are just duped by the state run media as it inflames Americans to war...as was done so many times before. Why is it so many Americans never learn from history?

Indeed.

Why do so many Americans not learn from history?

Had we stopped Hitler in the 1930s, 50,000,000 people would have survived the 1940s, and the Cold War would never have happened.

Learning from history, indeed.

Here is a profound quote from George Orwell, in which you should take to heart.

"The ruling class in every age have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers."

So tell us, oh, wise one, what is YOUR solution to the dilemma of either Preemptive Strike or Nuclear Blackmail?

 

[Crixus]

.
Various estimates place the cost of the U.S. military adventures in the Middle East since 2003 at $4 trillion to $6 trillion to date. This does not include additional costs that will be incurred in the future resulting from these wars.

Also, keep in mind, U.S. fighting during this century in the Middle East has been largely from the air. Most ground battles have been skirmishes against Islamic extremist guerrilla groups, not seasoned military troops with heavy artillery.

Leaving these few details about the Middle East wars behind for a moment, officials on both sides are predicting the war between the U.S. and North Korea to be inevitable, as Trump and Kim Jong-un keep upping the ante with their insults to each other.

So, taking into consideration the trillions-of-dollars of borrowed money the U.S. has already spent increasing unrest across the Middle East, with no end in sight, how will the U.S. pay the American defense industry for the war materials necessary to engage North Korea? (The corporate executives of these companies will expect their bonuses, and stockholders will certainly NOT be donating their dividends to the cause.)

Given the many insults Trump has aimed at our European allies, it’s doubtful any of them will pony up cash to loan the U.S. Plus, with the attention of the U.S. military split between the Middle East AND North Korea, Putin’s expansion into the Crimea will undoubtedly spread to other Eastern European nations. So, NATO members will have their hands full in Europe.

Also, China isn’t going to sit by and permit the destruction of their neighbor and ally North Korea. China has 2,183,000 active military troops to add to North Korea’s 1,190,000 active troops, to fight against the United States’ 1,347,300 military members.

Even with a best case scenario, where any sort of nuclear exchange can be avoided, and all action is limited to Eastern Asia, how long can the United States’ money and military hold out in a real war? Especially with the $1.5 trillion gift the GOP just gave to the 0.1% and Big Business? (The Social Security Trust Fund only has about $2 trillion in actual assets, the other $2 trillion in IOU,s from the federal government don’t count. This $2 trillion and eliminating all safety net programs could help, but not for very long in a real war.)

Any rational answers, anyone?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nkorea-says-us-threats-make-war-unavoidable-on-korean-peninsula-kcna/ar-BBGjXRI?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp


.

Well, war with Korea is a job Americans don’t want to do. Send the dreamers.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, your error is visible on both charts.

Maybe this will help you.

Thanks. We borrowed 70% of GDP.
We put WWII on our credit card.

But we paid it back. % of GDP wouldn't have fallen to pre-WWII levels if we hadn't.

You can see what happens to debt right about the time Reagan gets elected, and no longer do we raise taxes to pay for wars.

But we paid it back.

Yes we did.
After we ran up the charge card, we eventually paid it down.

and no longer do we raise taxes to pay for wars.

We haven't had one as expensive as WWII lately.

Right, we havent had "one" as expensive. We've had several post 9/11 wars, and they have been more expensive.

 

[gipper]

...Yes. Don't go to war.

Good idea.

Let's ignore Chuckle's --- the 3rd-generation Hermit King's --- first baby-steps into the world of nuclear-tipped ICBMs.

Let's wait until Kim Jong Fat-Boy has a rock-solid 200 or 300 or 400 weapon intercontinental nuclear arsenal capable of destroying Western Civilization.

Let's not bother the little baby snake.

Let's wait until it's actually grown fangs and reaches full length before we are forced to chop its head off.

Yeah... that's the ticket...

Oh, by the way, your psychic medium called, and left a message, saying that she's made contact with another ghost, perfect for you to channel...

We can always count on statists who think politicians should take the nation to war, causing massive death and destruction all for nothing...well not nothing. War is always about the health of the State....hence statists love it.

Or maybe you are just duped by the state run media as it inflames Americans to war...as was done so many times before. Why is it so many Americans never learn from history?

Indeed.

Why do so many Americans not learn from history?

Had we stopped Hitler in the 1930s, 50,000,000 people would have survived the 1940s, and the Cold War would never have happened.

Learning from history, indeed.

Here is a profound quote from George Orwell, in which you should take to heart.

"The ruling class in every age have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers."

So tell us, oh, wise one, what is YOUR solution to the dilemma of either Preemptive Strike or Nuclear Blackmail?

All wars are bankers wars. Hopefully you know this.
The USA should never preemptive strike any nation. That is unacceptable and history proves it to be a failure. See Saddam’s WMD. Never go to war based on intelligence since it is almost always wrong.
Nuclear blackmail is avoided by not provoking nations. Not antagonizing undermining or murdering leaders of other nations.

 

[Kondor3]

All wars are bankers wars. Hopefully you know this. The USA should never preemptive strike any nation. That is unacceptable and history proves it to be a failure. See Saddam’s WMD. Never go to war based on intelligence since it is almost always wrong. Nuclear blackmail is avoided by not provoking nations. Not antagonizing undermining or murdering leaders of other nations.

And the lions and the lambs shall lie down together... in some alternative universe... but not this one.

 

[gipper]

All wars are bankers wars. Hopefully you know this. The USA should never preemptive strike any nation. That is unacceptable and history proves it to be a failure. See Saddam’s WMD. Never go to war based on intelligence since it is almost always wrong. Nuclear blackmail is avoided by not provoking nations. Not antagonizing undermining or murdering leaders of other nations.

And the lions and the lambs shall lie down together... in some alternative universe... but not this one.

If you really think the little fat bastard in NK wants war with the USA, you are deluding yourself. He has no chance and knows it. We are provoking and threatening him. He knows he needs nukes or he will end up deceived and dead like Gaddafi. So, let’s leave him alone.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, your error is visible on both charts.

Maybe this will help you.

Thanks. We borrowed 70% of GDP.
We put WWII on our credit card.

But we paid it back. % of GDP wouldn't have fallen to pre-WWII levels if we hadn't.

You can see what happens to debt right about the time Reagan gets elected, and no longer do we raise taxes to pay for wars.

But we paid it back.

Yes we did.
After we ran up the charge card, we eventually paid it down.

and no longer do we raise taxes to pay for wars.

We haven't had one as expensive as WWII lately.

Right, we havent had "one" as expensive. We've had several post 9/11 wars, and they have been more expensive.

We've had several post 9/11 wars, and they have been more expensive.

They cost more than 70% of GDP?
Tell me more!!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Maybe this will help you.

Thanks. We borrowed 70% of GDP.
We put WWII on our credit card.

But we paid it back. % of GDP wouldn't have fallen to pre-WWII levels if we hadn't.

You can see what happens to debt right about the time Reagan gets elected, and no longer do we raise taxes to pay for wars.

But we paid it back.

Yes we did.
After we ran up the charge card, we eventually paid it down.

and no longer do we raise taxes to pay for wars.

We haven't had one as expensive as WWII lately.

Right, we havent had "one" as expensive. We've had several post 9/11 wars, and they have been more expensive.

We've had several post 9/11 wars, and they have been more expensive.

They cost more than 70% of GDP?
Tell me more!!

Do you say "Milk is more expensive now than in the year 1945, when considering the cost of one gallon of milk as percentage of the GDP"

No, of course you don't. The post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II in normalized dollars. The amount of labor, bridges, services, in general that this dollar can buy is normalized. And really, when you consider how much more efficiently we can do things today in tech and energy, the cost becomes even higher, in comparison.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks. We borrowed 70% of GDP.
We put WWII on our credit card.

But we paid it back. % of GDP wouldn't have fallen to pre-WWII levels if we hadn't.

You can see what happens to debt right about the time Reagan gets elected, and no longer do we raise taxes to pay for wars.

But we paid it back.

Yes we did.
After we ran up the charge card, we eventually paid it down.

and no longer do we raise taxes to pay for wars.

We haven't had one as expensive as WWII lately.

Right, we havent had "one" as expensive. We've had several post 9/11 wars, and they have been more expensive.

We've had several post 9/11 wars, and they have been more expensive.

They cost more than 70% of GDP?
Tell me more!!

Do you say "Milk is more expensive now than in the year 1945, when considering the cost of one gallon of milk as percentage of the GDP"

No, of course you don't. The post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II in normalized dollars. The amount of labor, bridges, services, in general that this dollar can buy is normalized. And really, when you consider how much more efficiently we can do things today in tech and energy, the cost becomes even higher.

The post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II in normalized dollars.

Normalized dollar?
Can you restate your claim using a real economics definition?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But we paid it back. % of GDP wouldn't have fallen to pre-WWII levels if we hadn't.

You can see what happens to debt right about the time Reagan gets elected, and no longer do we raise taxes to pay for wars.

But we paid it back.

Yes we did.
After we ran up the charge card, we eventually paid it down.

and no longer do we raise taxes to pay for wars.

We haven't had one as expensive as WWII lately.

Right, we havent had "one" as expensive. We've had several post 9/11 wars, and they have been more expensive.

We've had several post 9/11 wars, and they have been more expensive.

They cost more than 70% of GDP?
Tell me more!!

Do you say "Milk is more expensive now than in the year 1945, when considering the cost of one gallon of milk as percentage of the GDP"

No, of course you don't. The post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II in normalized dollars. The amount of labor, bridges, services, in general that this dollar can buy is normalized. And really, when you consider how much more efficiently we can do things today in tech and energy, the cost becomes even higher.

The post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II in normalized dollars.

Normalized dollar?
Can you restate your claim using a real economics definition?

Yes I can. "In dollars, normalized for inflation". Sorry, forgot this was a remedial class. Oh USMB, you're adorable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But we paid it back.

Yes we did.
After we ran up the charge card, we eventually paid it down.

and no longer do we raise taxes to pay for wars.

We haven't had one as expensive as WWII lately.

Right, we havent had "one" as expensive. We've had several post 9/11 wars, and they have been more expensive.

We've had several post 9/11 wars, and they have been more expensive.

They cost more than 70% of GDP?
Tell me more!!

Do you say "Milk is more expensive now than in the year 1945, when considering the cost of one gallon of milk as percentage of the GDP"

No, of course you don't. The post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II in normalized dollars. The amount of labor, bridges, services, in general that this dollar can buy is normalized. And really, when you consider how much more efficiently we can do things today in tech and energy, the cost becomes even higher.

The post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II in normalized dollars.

Normalized dollar?
Can you restate your claim using a real economics definition?

Yes I can. "In dollars, normalized for inflation". Sorry, forgot this was a remedial class. Oh USMB, you're adorable.

Yes I can. "In dollars, normalized for inflation".

The term for that is "real dollars" not "normalized dollars". DERP!

Sorry, forgot this was a remedial class.

Don't worry about it. Liberals are usually pretty ignorant of economics.
Now back to your seat.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

.
Various estimates place the cost of the U.S. military adventures in the Middle East since 2003 at $4 trillion to $6 trillion to date. This does not include additional costs that will be incurred in the future resulting from these wars.

Also, keep in mind, U.S. fighting during this century in the Middle East has been largely from the air. Most ground battles have been skirmishes against Islamic extremist guerrilla groups, not seasoned military troops with heavy artillery.

Leaving these few details about the Middle East wars behind for a moment, officials on both sides are predicting the war between the U.S. and North Korea to be inevitable, as Trump and Kim Jong-un keep upping the ante with their insults to each other.

So, taking into consideration the trillions-of-dollars of borrowed money the U.S. has already spent increasing unrest across the Middle East, with no end in sight, how will the U.S. pay the American defense industry for the war materials necessary to engage North Korea? (The corporate executives of these companies will expect their bonuses, and stockholders will certainly NOT be donating their dividends to the cause.)

Given the many insults Trump has aimed at our European allies, it’s doubtful any of them will pony up cash to loan the U.S. Plus, with the attention of the U.S. military split between the Middle East AND North Korea, Putin’s expansion into the Crimea will undoubtedly spread to other Eastern European nations. So, NATO members will have their hands full in Europe.

Also, China isn’t going to sit by and permit the destruction of their neighbor and ally North Korea. China has 2,183,000 active military troops to add to North Korea’s 1,190,000 active troops, to fight against the United States’ 1,347,300 military members.

Even with a best case scenario, where any sort of nuclear exchange can be avoided, and all action is limited to Eastern Asia, how long can the United States’ money and military hold out in a real war? Especially with the $1.5 trillion gift the GOP just gave to the 0.1% and Big Business? (The Social Security Trust Fund only has about $2 trillion in actual assets, the other $2 trillion in IOU,s from the federal government don’t count. This $2 trillion and eliminating all safety net programs could help, but not for very long in a real war.)

Any rational answers, anyone?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nkorea-says-us-threats-make-war-unavoidable-on-korean-peninsula-kcna/ar-BBGjXRI?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp


.

It's going to cost 6 trillion dollars to launch 37 cruise missiles from our
subs and kill every living person in that country?

I guess fuel must be on the rise again.

Launch in either January, May or September. Fuel is always
cheaper in those months.

How are you going to kill every living person with 37 cruise missiles? They only put the Syrina airstrip out for about a day.

Sorry for the omission...37 Nuke tipped Cruise Missiles.

Sorry, we don't have any of those anymore.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Right, we havent had "one" as expensive. We've had several post 9/11 wars, and they have been more expensive.

We've had several post 9/11 wars, and they have been more expensive.

They cost more than 70% of GDP?
Tell me more!!

Do you say "Milk is more expensive now than in the year 1945, when considering the cost of one gallon of milk as percentage of the GDP"

No, of course you don't. The post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II in normalized dollars. The amount of labor, bridges, services, in general that this dollar can buy is normalized. And really, when you consider how much more efficiently we can do things today in tech and energy, the cost becomes even higher.

The post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II in normalized dollars.

Normalized dollar?
Can you restate your claim using a real economics definition?

Yes I can. "In dollars, normalized for inflation". Sorry, forgot this was a remedial class. Oh USMB, you're adorable.

Yes I can. "In dollars, normalized for inflation".

The term for that is "real dollars" not "normalized dollars". DERP!

Sorry, forgot this was a remedial class.

Don't worry about it. Liberals are usually pretty ignorant of economics.
Now back to your seat.

Wrong. The term normalized dollars is used often, especially in mathematical analysis. A "real dollar" is a type of normalized dollar.

Now, back to your false claim and bad arguments....yes, the post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II. Stunning, isnt it? I know that it is sometimes hard to find out that the conclusions you drew from feelings arising from your colon are wrong, so I understand your lashing out.

 

[HenryBHough]

Now that the pesky constitutional thing about the birthplace of presidents is out of the way, The Democrat Party could solve the whole thing by running Kim Jong Un for President in 2020. Of course there IS the risk that he might not be sufficiently for dictatorial control to be to DNC taste.....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sorry, we don't have any of those anymore.

Nuclear Cruise Missiles - New Stealth Cruise Missile, the LRSO

 

[PredFan]

.
Various estimates place the cost of the U.S. military adventures in the Middle East since 2003 at $4 trillion to $6 trillion to date. This does not include additional costs that will be incurred in the future resulting from these wars.

Also, keep in mind, U.S. fighting during this century in the Middle East has been largely from the air. Most ground battles have been skirmishes against Islamic extremist guerrilla groups, not seasoned military troops with heavy artillery.

Leaving these few details about the Middle East wars behind for a moment, officials on both sides are predicting the war between the U.S. and North Korea to be inevitable, as Trump and Kim Jong-un keep upping the ante with their insults to each other.

So, taking into consideration the trillions-of-dollars of borrowed money the U.S. has already spent increasing unrest across the Middle East, with no end in sight, how will the U.S. pay the American defense industry for the war materials necessary to engage North Korea? (The corporate executives of these companies will expect their bonuses, and stockholders will certainly NOT be donating their dividends to the cause.)

Given the many insults Trump has aimed at our European allies, it’s doubtful any of them will pony up cash to loan the U.S. Plus, with the attention of the U.S. military split between the Middle East AND North Korea, Putin’s expansion into the Crimea will undoubtedly spread to other Eastern European nations. So, NATO members will have their hands full in Europe.

Also, China isn’t going to sit by and permit the destruction of their neighbor and ally North Korea. China has 2,183,000 active military troops to add to North Korea’s 1,190,000 active troops, to fight against the United States’ 1,347,300 military members.

Even with a best case scenario, where any sort of nuclear exchange can be avoided, and all action is limited to Eastern Asia, how long can the United States’ money and military hold out in a real war? Especially with the $1.5 trillion gift the GOP just gave to the 0.1% and Big Business? (The Social Security Trust Fund only has about $2 trillion in actual assets, the other $2 trillion in IOU,s from the federal government don’t count. This $2 trillion and eliminating all safety net programs could help, but not for very long in a real war.)

Any rational answers, anyone?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nkorea-says-us-threats-make-war-unavoidable-on-korean-peninsula-kcna/ar-BBGjXRI?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp


.

What war? There is no war, that only exists in the deranged minds of the left.

 

[Cellblock2429]

.
Various estimates place the cost of the U.S. military adventures in the Middle East since 2003 at $4 trillion to $6 trillion to date. This does not include additional costs that will be incurred in the future resulting from these wars.

Also, keep in mind, U.S. fighting during this century in the Middle East has been largely from the air. Most ground battles have been skirmishes against Islamic extremist guerrilla groups, not seasoned military troops with heavy artillery.

Leaving these few details about the Middle East wars behind for a moment, officials on both sides are predicting the war between the U.S. and North Korea to be inevitable, as Trump and Kim Jong-un keep upping the ante with their insults to each other.

So, taking into consideration the trillions-of-dollars of borrowed money the U.S. has already spent increasing unrest across the Middle East, with no end in sight, how will the U.S. pay the American defense industry for the war materials necessary to engage North Korea? (The corporate executives of these companies will expect their bonuses, and stockholders will certainly NOT be donating their dividends to the cause.)

Given the many insults Trump has aimed at our European allies, it’s doubtful any of them will pony up cash to loan the U.S. Plus, with the attention of the U.S. military split between the Middle East AND North Korea, Putin’s expansion into the Crimea will undoubtedly spread to other Eastern European nations. So, NATO members will have their hands full in Europe.

Also, China isn’t going to sit by and permit the destruction of their neighbor and ally North Korea. China has 2,183,000 active military troops to add to North Korea’s 1,190,000 active troops, to fight against the United States’ 1,347,300 military members.

Even with a best case scenario, where any sort of nuclear exchange can be avoided, and all action is limited to Eastern Asia, how long can the United States’ money and military hold out in a real war? Especially with the $1.5 trillion gift the GOP just gave to the 0.1% and Big Business? (The Social Security Trust Fund only has about $2 trillion in actual assets, the other $2 trillion in IOU,s from the federal government don’t count. This $2 trillion and eliminating all safety net programs could help, but not for very long in a real war.)

Any rational answers, anyone?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nkorea-says-us-threats-make-war-unavoidable-on-korean-peninsula-kcna/ar-BBGjXRI?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp


.[/QUOTE
/—-/ We can cut off your food stamps and welfare for starters. Of course you’ll have to get a job and support yourself. Bummer

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We've had several post 9/11 wars, and they have been more expensive.

They cost more than 70% of GDP?
Tell me more!!

Do you say "Milk is more expensive now than in the year 1945, when considering the cost of one gallon of milk as percentage of the GDP"

No, of course you don't. The post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II in normalized dollars. The amount of labor, bridges, services, in general that this dollar can buy is normalized. And really, when you consider how much more efficiently we can do things today in tech and energy, the cost becomes even higher.

The post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II in normalized dollars.

Normalized dollar?
Can you restate your claim using a real economics definition?

Yes I can. "In dollars, normalized for inflation". Sorry, forgot this was a remedial class. Oh USMB, you're adorable.

Yes I can. "In dollars, normalized for inflation".

The term for that is "real dollars" not "normalized dollars". DERP!

Sorry, forgot this was a remedial class.

Don't worry about it. Liberals are usually pretty ignorant of economics.
Now back to your seat.

Wrong. The term normalized dollars is used often, especially in mathematical analysis. A "real dollar" is a type of normalized dollar.

Now, back to your false claim and bad arguments....yes, the post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II. Stunning, isnt it? I know that it is sometimes hard to find out that the conclusions you drew from feelings arising from your colon are wrong, so I understand your lashing out.

The term normalized dollars is used often, especially in mathematical analysis.

LOL!
The common term in economics is "real dollars" or "constant dollars", never normalized dollars.

Now, back to your false claim and bad arguments....yes, the post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II.

WWII led to added debt of 70% of GDP.
How much was defense spending since 9/11?

Stunning, isnt it?

No, your idiocy is not stunning.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

.
Various estimates place the cost of the U.S. military adventures in the Middle East since 2003 at $4 trillion to $6 trillion to date. This does not include additional costs that will be incurred in the future resulting from these wars.

Also, keep in mind, U.S. fighting during this century in the Middle East has been largely from the air. Most ground battles have been skirmishes against Islamic extremist guerrilla groups, not seasoned military troops with heavy artillery.

Leaving these few details about the Middle East wars behind for a moment, officials on both sides are predicting the war between the U.S. and North Korea to be inevitable, as Trump and Kim Jong-un keep upping the ante with their insults to each other.

So, taking into consideration the trillions-of-dollars of borrowed money the U.S. has already spent increasing unrest across the Middle East, with no end in sight, how will the U.S. pay the American defense industry for the war materials necessary to engage North Korea? (The corporate executives of these companies will expect their bonuses, and stockholders will certainly NOT be donating their dividends to the cause.)

Given the many insults Trump has aimed at our European allies, it’s doubtful any of them will pony up cash to loan the U.S. Plus, with the attention of the U.S. military split between the Middle East AND North Korea, Putin’s expansion into the Crimea will undoubtedly spread to other Eastern European nations. So, NATO members will have their hands full in Europe.

Also, China isn’t going to sit by and permit the destruction of their neighbor and ally North Korea. China has 2,183,000 active military troops to add to North Korea’s 1,190,000 active troops, to fight against the United States’ 1,347,300 military members.

Even with a best case scenario, where any sort of nuclear exchange can be avoided, and all action is limited to Eastern Asia, how long can the United States’ money and military hold out in a real war? Especially with the $1.5 trillion gift the GOP just gave to the 0.1% and Big Business? (The Social Security Trust Fund only has about $2 trillion in actual assets, the other $2 trillion in IOU,s from the federal government don’t count. This $2 trillion and eliminating all safety net programs could help, but not for very long in a real war.)

Any rational answers, anyone?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nkorea-says-us-threats-make-war-unavoidable-on-korean-peninsula-kcna/ar-BBGjXRI?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp


.[/QUOTE
/—-/ We can cut off your food stamps and welfare for starters. Of course you’ll have to get a job and support yourself. Bummer

Do you say "Milk is more expensive now than in the year 1945, when considering the cost of one gallon of milk as percentage of the GDP"

No, of course you don't. The post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II in normalized dollars. The amount of labor, bridges, services, in general that this dollar can buy is normalized. And really, when you consider how much more efficiently we can do things today in tech and energy, the cost becomes even higher.

The post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II in normalized dollars.

Normalized dollar?
Can you restate your claim using a real economics definition?

Yes I can. "In dollars, normalized for inflation". Sorry, forgot this was a remedial class. Oh USMB, you're adorable.

Yes I can. "In dollars, normalized for inflation".

The term for that is "real dollars" not "normalized dollars". DERP!

Sorry, forgot this was a remedial class.

Don't worry about it. Liberals are usually pretty ignorant of economics.
Now back to your seat.

Wrong. The term normalized dollars is used often, especially in mathematical analysis. A "real dollar" is a type of normalized dollar.

Now, back to your false claim and bad arguments....yes, the post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II. Stunning, isnt it? I know that it is sometimes hard to find out that the conclusions you drew from feelings arising from your colon are wrong, so I understand your lashing out.

The term normalized dollars is used often, especially in mathematical analysis.

LOL!
The common term in economics is "real dollars" or "constant dollars", never normalized dollars.

Now, back to your false claim and bad arguments....yes, the post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II.

WWII led to added debt of 70% of GDP.
How much was defense spending since 9/11?

Stunning, isnt it?

No, your idiocy is not stunning.

Real dollars are normalized dollars. My math background led to the more general term. Cry all you want.

No, % of GDP is not the correct way of measuring the cost. Do you measure the cost of a car or a gallon of milk as a percentage of GDP? Of course not, stop being an intransigent idiot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

.
Various estimates place the cost of the U.S. military adventures in the Middle East since 2003 at $4 trillion to $6 trillion to date. This does not include additional costs that will be incurred in the future resulting from these wars.

Also, keep in mind, U.S. fighting during this century in the Middle East has been largely from the air. Most ground battles have been skirmishes against Islamic extremist guerrilla groups, not seasoned military troops with heavy artillery.

Leaving these few details about the Middle East wars behind for a moment, officials on both sides are predicting the war between the U.S. and North Korea to be inevitable, as Trump and Kim Jong-un keep upping the ante with their insults to each other.

So, taking into consideration the trillions-of-dollars of borrowed money the U.S. has already spent increasing unrest across the Middle East, with no end in sight, how will the U.S. pay the American defense industry for the war materials necessary to engage North Korea? (The corporate executives of these companies will expect their bonuses, and stockholders will certainly NOT be donating their dividends to the cause.)

Given the many insults Trump has aimed at our European allies, it’s doubtful any of them will pony up cash to loan the U.S. Plus, with the attention of the U.S. military split between the Middle East AND North Korea, Putin’s expansion into the Crimea will undoubtedly spread to other Eastern European nations. So, NATO members will have their hands full in Europe.

Also, China isn’t going to sit by and permit the destruction of their neighbor and ally North Korea. China has 2,183,000 active military troops to add to North Korea’s 1,190,000 active troops, to fight against the United States’ 1,347,300 military members.

Even with a best case scenario, where any sort of nuclear exchange can be avoided, and all action is limited to Eastern Asia, how long can the United States’ money and military hold out in a real war? Especially with the $1.5 trillion gift the GOP just gave to the 0.1% and Big Business? (The Social Security Trust Fund only has about $2 trillion in actual assets, the other $2 trillion in IOU,s from the federal government don’t count. This $2 trillion and eliminating all safety net programs could help, but not for very long in a real war.)

Any rational answers, anyone?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nkorea-says-us-threats-make-war-unavoidable-on-korean-peninsula-kcna/ar-BBGjXRI?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp


.[/QUOTE
/—-/ We can cut off your food stamps and welfare for starters. Of course you’ll have to get a job and support yourself. Bummer

The post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II in normalized dollars.

Normalized dollar?
Can you restate your claim using a real economics definition?

Yes I can. "In dollars, normalized for inflation". Sorry, forgot this was a remedial class. Oh USMB, you're adorable.

Yes I can. "In dollars, normalized for inflation".

The term for that is "real dollars" not "normalized dollars". DERP!

Sorry, forgot this was a remedial class.

Don't worry about it. Liberals are usually pretty ignorant of economics.
Now back to your seat.

Wrong. The term normalized dollars is used often, especially in mathematical analysis. A "real dollar" is a type of normalized dollar.

Now, back to your false claim and bad arguments....yes, the post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II. Stunning, isnt it? I know that it is sometimes hard to find out that the conclusions you drew from feelings arising from your colon are wrong, so I understand your lashing out.

The term normalized dollars is used often, especially in mathematical analysis.

LOL!
The common term in economics is "real dollars" or "constant dollars", never normalized dollars.

Now, back to your false claim and bad arguments....yes, the post 9/11 wars were more expensive than WW II.

WWII led to added debt of 70% of GDP.
How much was defense spending since 9/11?

Stunning, isnt it?

No, your idiocy is not stunning.

Real dollars are normalized dollars. My math background led to the more general term. Cry all you want.

No, % of GDP is not the correct way of measuring the cost. Do you measure the cost of a car or a gallon of milk as a percentage of GDP? Of course not, stop being an intransigent idiot.

No, % of GDP is not the correct way of measuring the cost.

Feel free to compare the pre-WWII debt with the postwar debt,
run it thru an inflation calculator and post the results.

Do you measure the cost of a car or a gallon of milk as a percentage of GDP?

I could, if I was the US government.....it wouldn't reduce your stupidity one bit.