Does the U.S. really have allies in the middle east?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And again....how can you say that another government would not be corrupt? You cannot. It's entirely possible that in some countries that may be all you get. Those countries should do something about their government and not expect outsiders to do so. Plus, some money might go in private pockets but some does get spent on the public in those countries. Do you honestly think those countries would be better in more poverty? That kind of kills any chance of affecting government/political change.

LJS9502_basic

I'm actually against so much foreign aid being given out. Doesn't matter to me whether the government is corrupt or not. I don't think we should that much money away. Foreign Aid should be from a surplus.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

ISI has caught the most al qaeda members. why would they do that if they were terrorist sympathisers?

I didn't say the ISI as a whole were terrorist sympathisers. I said that there are certain groups inside the Palestinian government and intelligence community that are.

point out those groups

Well if there was a corrupt government you are against in the US would you a) encourage a foreign country to help it and give money to it or b) encourage a foreign country to stop aiding it and giving money to it? It is actually very simple you can't justify helping a corrupt government by assuming there would always be a corrupt governemnt in there. Let the people there decide on their own how and by whom they want to be ruled for once.kuraimen

I'm actually against so much foreign aid being given out. Doesn't matter to me whether the government is corrupt or not. I don't think we should that much money away. Foreign Aid should be from a surplus.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

ISI has caught the most al qaeda members. why would they do that if they were terrorist sympathisers?

Harisemo

I didn't say the ISI as a whole were terrorist sympathisers. I said that there are certain groups inside the Palestinian government and intelligence community that are.

point out those groups

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2441.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/al4/terror/isi_kashmir.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1734113.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5394686.stm
http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/mar/21spec.htm
http://in.rediff.com/news/2007/may/25guest.htm
http://www.cfr.org/pakistan/pakistans-new-generation-terrorists/p15422

Apart from hard ISI/Terrorist links, you'd be hard pressed to see these groups operating if the ISI didn't have sympathetic groups.

The ones that organized and aided the bombings in Mumbai for starters.sonicare

In which the director of ISI was allegedly involved? India should provide proof of ISI involvement

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]This issue is not as simple as you make it. If government A is in power and you want to funnel aid into country X...then you have to deal with government A.

I'm actually against so much foreign aid being given out. Doesn't matter to me whether the government is corrupt or not. I don't think we should that much money away. Foreign Aid should be from a surplus.

sonicare

You can choose to have more influence or less influence. What influence do you think Nigeria or Nepal has over american internal policy? little to non. The US can decide to have little to no influence in the ME policy and history says that maybe they should start choosing that route.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

I myself am not an American. I simply talk that way because I'm studying IR and a lot of American policy lol. But yes, I agree the US has had many problems and isn't perfect, but we can't view them as completely evil either.

LJS9502_basic

Just because I'm not American doesn't diminish any of my reasoning in my posts. America shouldn't back away from foreign involvement, and a lot of prominent American political scientists and economists agree.

That said, I'm from a country which does not require foreign aid. In fact, you require us as much as we require you. The global economy cannot be everyone for themselves anymore.

If the US stop funding the ME then the ME will sell its oil to China/Russia.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] I think regions should mostly aid themselves. Let the ME aid themsleves since they have their interests and problems more clear. The US asks things in exchange of that aid that's why Egypt supported Israel and secured oil routes for the US.kuraimen

You can choose to have more influence or less influence. What influence do you think Nigeria or Nepal has over american internal policy? little to non. The US can decide to have little to no influence in the ME policy and history says that maybe they should start choosing that route.

If the US stop funding the ME then the ME will sell its oil to China/Russia.

tenaka2

Which is the better ally of the two! Easterns united for the win!

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

I didn't say the ISI as a whole were terrorist sympathisers. I said that there are certain groups inside the Palestinian government and intelligence community that are.

Firebird-5

point out those groups

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2441.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/al4/terror/isi_kashmir.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1734113.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5394686.stm
http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/mar/21spec.htm
http://in.rediff.com/news/2007/may/25guest.htm
http://www.cfr.org/pakistan/pakistans-new-generation-terrorists/p15422

Apart from hard ISI/Terrorist links, you'd be hard pressed to see these groups operating if the ISI didn't have sympathetic groups.

Support of kashmiri freedom fighters (or terrorists for india) is not considered bad in pakistan, in fact majority of people in pakistan support these freedom fighters.

If the US stop funding the ME then the ME will sell its oil to China/Russia.

tenaka2

Russia has plenty of its own. But China would very much welcome middle eastern resources (I mean, they're still in Iran). That being that, if they stopped trading with the US they would still lose a lot of money.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

I myself am not an American. I simply talk that way because I'm studying IR and a lot of American policy lol. But yes, I agree the US has had many problems and isn't perfect, but we can't view them as completely evil either.

Firebird-5

Just because I'm not American doesn't diminish any of my reasoning in my posts. America shouldn't back away from foreign involvement, and a lot of prominent American political scientists and economists agree.

That said, I'm from a country which does not require foreign aid. In fact, you require us as much as we require you. The global economy cannot be everyone for themselves anymore.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

point out those groups

Harisemo

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2441.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/al4/terror/isi_kashmir.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1734113.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5394686.stm
http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/mar/21spec.htm
http://in.rediff.com/news/2007/may/25guest.htm
http://www.cfr.org/pakistan/pakistans-new-generation-terrorists/p15422

Apart from hard ISI/Terrorist links, you'd be hard pressed to see these groups operating if the ISI didn't have sympathetic groups.

Support of kashmiri freedom fighters (or terrorists for india) is not considered bad in pakistan, in fact majority of people in pakistan support these freedom fighters.

terrorism is terrorism. i don't care if you support the cause. and if you think that the attacks like those on the taj hotel are in any way legitimised...

Support of kashmiri freedom fighters (or terrorists for india) is not considered bad in pakistan, in fact majority of people in pakistan support these freedom fighters.

Harisemo

terrorism is terrorism. i don't care if you support the cause. and if you think that the attacks like those on the taj hotel are in any way legitimised...

Firebird-5

I don't believe ISI had anything to do with those attacks

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

Support of kashmiri freedom fighters (or terrorists for india) is not considered bad in pakistan, in fact majority of people in pakistan support these freedom fighters.

LJS9502_basic

i don't consider fight against indian oppression in kashmir to be terrorism.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I understand your posts a lot better. You aren't in the US and thus domestic problems are not important whereas you'd prefer foreign aid. He does view the US as evil by the way. Read his other posts....

LJS9502_basic

Just because I'm not American doesn't diminish any of my reasoning in my posts. America shouldn't back away from foreign involvement, and a lot of prominent American political scientists and economists agree.

That said, I'm from a country which does not require foreign aid. In fact, you require us as much as we require you. The global economy cannot be everyone for themselves anymore.

Australia. Our economy is at full employment, growth is very strong and projected to grow more. Just because we have domestic issues doesn't mean we shouldn't be investing in international ones.

And it is best, if you were an american citizen, that in the post-washington consensus world that countries are ready and willing to trade with the US. foreign investment only increases purchasing power globally, which is in both the US's interests and the worlds. Stop accusing me of 'not knowing what's good' simply because I don't live in the US. It's almost like telling me I don't know how to use Pythagora's theorem because I don't live in greece. It is a rather disingenuous form of argument, but not surprising considering your views.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

terrorism is terrorism. i don't care if you support the cause. and if you think that the attacks like those on the taj hotel are in any way legitimised...

Harisemo

I don't believe ISI had anything to do with those attacks

Well, just because you don't believe it doesn't mean that the accusations and their foundations exist.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] That never happens. The US may have the most known foreign policy, but every nation has its hands in other regions. It's just the way things are. sonicare

You can choose to have more influence or less influence. What influence do you think Nigeria or Nepal has over american internal policy? little to non. The US can decide to have little to no influence in the ME policy and history says that maybe they should start choosing that route.

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

terrorism is terrorism. i don't care if you support the cause. and if you think that the attacks like those on the taj hotel are in any way legitimised...

Firebird-5

I don't believe ISI had anything to do with those attacks

Well, just because you don't believe it doesn't mean that the accusations and their foundations exist.

false accusations. Those who accuse ISI should provide evidence.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

Just because I'm not American doesn't diminish any of my reasoning in my posts. America shouldn't back away from foreign involvement, and a lot of prominent American political scientists and economists agree.

That said, I'm from a country which does not require foreign aid. In fact, you require us as much as we require you. The global economy cannot be everyone for themselves anymore.

Firebird-5

Australia. Our economy is at full employment, growth is very strong and projected to grow more. Just because we have domestic issues doesn't mean we shouldn't be investing in international ones.

And it is best, if you were an american citizen, that in the post-washington consensus world that countries are ready and willing to trade with the US. foreign investment only increases purchasing power globally, which is in both the US's interests and the worlds. Stop accusing me of 'not knowing what's good' simply because I don't live in the US. It's almost like telling me I don't know how to use Pythagora's theorem because I don't live in greece.

I'd imagine if Australia struggled more the opinion would change. The analogy about a math thereom isn't remotely analgous to a government problem at home.

i don't consider fight against indian oppression in kashmir to be terrorism.

Harisemo

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]But your reasoning is based on different criteria....and you would have no personal knowledge of living in the US. It doesn't affect you. There is a bit of bias in regard to this question. It's impossible for it not to exist. Your interests would not be the same as a citizen. UK? Domestic problems there that I think should be addressed rather than foreign as well. Nonetheless, the reason there is a global economy is because governments have created it. It doesn't exist without governments. Anyway....it is always good to see a non American that has a positive view of the US. We're not going to agree on this issue. A country cannot long be strong enough for donating foreign aid if it allows it's domestic problems to remain unresolved because the money is going elsewhere. That's a fact....LJS9502_basic

Australia. Our economy is at full employment, growth is very strong and projected to grow more. Just because we have domestic issues doesn't mean we shouldn't be investing in international ones.

And it is best, if you were an american citizen, that in the post-washington consensus world that countries are ready and willing to trade with the US. foreign investment only increases purchasing power globally, which is in both the US's interests and the worlds. Stop accusing me of 'not knowing what's good' simply because I don't live in the US. It's almost like telling me I don't know how to use Pythagora's theorem because I don't live in greece.

I'd imagine if Australia struggled more the opinion would change. The analogy about a math thereom isn't remotely analgous to a government problem at home.

I'm not missing your main point. And you seem to be misunderstanding some very basic economic principles. If you cut spending during a downturn then the cyclical pressures simply grow higher, lengthening the downturn. Debt reduction is a priority, but not at the cost of the American economy. How are you going to reduce any debt if you have no economy? I realise macroeconomic theory isn't exactly an easy thing to grasp and is sometimes counterintuitive... but I am making arguments based on sane economic theory, where you are likening the Government to a household, where reining in spending solves problems. Microeconomics is not macroeconomics, and that was a large failure of understanding on behalf of the architects of the washington consensus.

The analogy of the math theorem is perfectly fine as well.

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

i don't consider fight against indian oppression in kashmir to be terrorism.

LJS9502_basic

it is considered terrorism by india

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

i don't consider fight against indian oppression in kashmir to be terrorism.

Harisemo

it is considered terrorism by india

how is the killing of non-combatants with the aim of pushing an agenda not terrorism. even the US DoD agrees

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]A fight against oppression is not terrorism....it's the manner employed that makes it such.

Firebird-5

it is considered terrorism by india

how is the killing of non-combatants with the aim of pushing an agenda not terrorism. even the US DoD agrees

ok? im not talking about killing non combatants.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

it is considered terrorism by india

Harisemo

how is the killing of non-combatants with the aim of pushing an agenda not terrorism. even the US DoD agrees

ok? im not talking about killing non combatants.

but they are doing it

I'm not missing your main point. And you seem to be misunderstanding some very basic economic principles. If you cut spending during a downturn then the cyclical pressures simply grow higher, lengthening the downturn. Debt reduction is a priority, but not at the cost of the American economy. How are you going to reduce any debt if you have no economy? I realise macroeconomic theory isn't exactly an easy thing to grasp and is sometimes counterintuitive... but I am making arguments based on sane economic theory, where you are likening the Government to a household, where reining in spending solves problems. Microeconomics is not macroeconomics, and that was a large failure of understanding on behalf of the architects of the washington consensus.

The analogy of the math theorem is perfectly fine as well.

Firebird-5

I have studied both micro and macro economics. Don't tell me what I can and cannot grasp. You have no clue about my personal life. And to balance the household check book....one does not spend more money than is coming in. Same principle with a balance sheet. It should balnce out. Too much debt and the company is insolvent.

No the analogy does not fit. The pattern for that theorem is the same no matter where one lives. Domestic and Foreign spending varies by country. Not all countries can afford the same expenditures. Not all companies have the same solvency.

To imply all countries are financially the same is flat out wrong. Maybe Australia can contribute more to Foreign Aid since they are doing so well. And make sure it's more money than they can afford to spend. Then come back and tell me how things fair in Australia.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

i don't consider fight against indian oppression in kashmir to be terrorism.

Harisemo

it is considered terrorism by india

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

how is the killing of non-combatants with the aim of pushing an agenda not terrorism. even the US DoD agrees

Firebird-5

ok? im not talking about killing non combatants.

but they are doing it

doing what? killing civilians in kashmir? thats what india does.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

I'm not missing your main point. And you seem to be misunderstanding some very basic economic principles. If you cut spending during a downturn then the cyclical pressures simply grow higher, lengthening the downturn. Debt reduction is a priority, but not at the cost of the American economy. How are you going to reduce any debt if you have no economy? I realise macroeconomic theory isn't exactly an easy thing to grasp and is sometimes counterintuitive... but I am making arguments based on sane economic theory, where you are likening the Government to a household, where reining in spending solves problems. Microeconomics is not macroeconomics, and that was a large failure of understanding on behalf of the architects of the washington consensus.

The analogy of the math theorem is perfectly fine as well.

LJS9502_basic

I have studied both micro and macro economics. Don't tell me what I can and cannot grasp. You have no clue about my personal life. And to balance the household check book....one does not spend more money than is coming in. Same principle with a balance sheet. It should balnce out. Too much debt and the company is insolvent.

No the analogy does not fit. The pattern for that theorem is the same no matter where one lives. Domestic and Foreign spending varies by country. Not all countries can afford the same expenditures. Not all companies have the same solvency.

To imply all countries are financially the same is flat out wrong. Maybe Australia can contribute more to Foreign Aid since they are doing so well. And make sure it's more money than they can afford to spend. Then come back and tell me how things fair in Australia.

I see. Foreign aid increases purchasing power in poorer countries, who in return, will buy US goods. Citing Cutting Aid to Punish Pakistan, Barbara Ward Jackson, Foreign Affairs

Given this political context, efforts to persuade and enlighten the electorates of the West have to be intensified. The passage of time has not lessened the force of any of the old arguments. Enlightened self-interest among the trading nations of the West is still involved in any policy which systematically expands the economies and purchasing power of millions who, today, do not enter the market at all. In fact, the argument may now be stronger since, in the Western world, there are signs on all sides that Atlantic demand is near to saturation and new markets and new needs have to be opened up to keep the vast industrial system in trim.

You're right: you can't spend what you don't have. But the US won't have any way to get what they need if they cut investment in the future of the developing world. It's pretty simple.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

ok? im not talking about killing non combatants.

Harisemo

but they are doing it

doing what? killing civilians in kashmir? thats what india does.

killing civilians (and foreign nationals) in india. that's what Lashkar-e-Taiba does.

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

but they are doing it

Firebird-5

doing what? killing civilians in kashmir? thats what india does.

killing civilians (and foreign nationals) in india. that's what Lashkar-e-Taiba does.

ok so?

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

doing what? killing civilians in kashmir? thats what india does.

Harisemo

killing civilians (and foreign nationals) in india. that's what Lashkar-e-Taiba does.

ok so?

and members from thatn group claim that pakistan helps train them.

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

killing civilians (and foreign nationals) in india. that's what Lashkar-e-Taiba does.

Firebird-5

ok so?

and members from thatn group claim that pakistan helps train them.

trains them to fight against indian oppression in kashmir.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

ok so?

Harisemo

and members from thatn group claim that pakistan helps train them.

trains them to fight against indian oppression in kashmir.

by killing non-combatants. see? terrorism.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

I'm not missing your main point. And you seem to be misunderstanding some very basic economic principles. If you cut spending during a downturn then the cyclical pressures simply grow higher, lengthening the downturn. Debt reduction is a priority, but not at the cost of the American economy. How are you going to reduce any debt if you have no economy? I realise macroeconomic theory isn't exactly an easy thing to grasp and is sometimes counterintuitive... but I am making arguments based on sane economic theory, where you are likening the Government to a household, where reining in spending solves problems. Microeconomics is not macroeconomics, and that was a large failure of understanding on behalf of the architects of the washington consensus.

The analogy of the math theorem is perfectly fine as well.

LJS9502_basic

I have studied both micro and macro economics. Don't tell me what I can and cannot grasp. You have no clue about my personal life. And to balance the household check book....one does not spend more money than is coming in. Same principle with a balance sheet. It should balnce out. Too much debt and the company is insolvent.

No the analogy does not fit. The pattern for that theorem is the same no matter where one lives. Domestic and Foreign spending varies by country. Not all countries can afford the same expenditures. Not all companies have the same solvency.

To imply all countries are financially the same is flat out wrong. Maybe Australia can contribute more to Foreign Aid since they are doing so well. And make sure it's more money than they can afford to spend. Then come back and tell me how things fair in Australia.

I see. Foreign aid increases purchasing power in poorer countries, who in return, will buy US goods.

You're right: you can't spend what you don't have. But the US won't have any way to get what they need if they cut investment in the future of the developing world. It's pretty simple.

Firebird-5

You can, however, trade with healthy countries that don't drain your country to get some puny purchasing power. That is win win for both countries.

That's false. What exactly can't we get here if we want to do so?

You can't compare the federal budget to a household check book. The two are completely different and have no relevance with one another. -Sun_Tzu

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

and members from thatn group claim that pakistan helps train them.

Firebird-5

trains them to fight against indian oppression in kashmir.

by killing non-combatants. see? terrorism.

they train them to fight indian forces not non combatants :|

The US does not have real allies; just vassals.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

I see. Foreign aid increases purchasing power in poorer countries, who in return, will buy US goods.

You're right: you can't spend what you don't have. But the US won't have any way to get what they need if they cut investment in the future of the developing world. It's pretty simple.

LJS9502_basic

You can, however, trade with healthy countries that don't drain your country to get some puny purchasing power. That is win win for both countries.

That's false. What exactly can't we get here if we want to do so?

What? more people entering into the market is a good thing. It doesn't matter if we have a CAD with Saudi Arabia... because we might have a surplus with the Europeans, and the Saudis might buy from them. See? The total amount of defecits equals the amounts of surpluses. By investing in foreign economies, we increase the number of people in the market, and that is only good for the world.

By the way, the global multiplier (i.e. for every dollar spent that generated) is not negative.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

trains them to fight against indian oppression in kashmir.

Harisemo

by killing non-combatants. see? terrorism.

they train them to fight indian forces not non combatants :|

yet they are implicated in the 2008 Mumbai bombings. and are considered a terrorist group by the international community.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

I see. Foreign aid increases purchasing power in poorer countries, who in return, will buy US goods.

You're right: you can't spend what you don't have. But the US won't have any way to get what they need if they cut investment in the future of the developing world. It's pretty simple.

Firebird-5

You can, however, trade with healthy countries that don't drain your country to get some puny purchasing power. That is win win for both countries.

That's false. What exactly can't we get here if we want to do so?

What? more people entering into the market is a good thing. It doesn't matter if we have a CAD with Saudi Arabia... because we might have a surplus with the Europeans, and the Saudis might buy from them. See? The total amount of defecits equals the amounts of surpluses. By investing in foreign economies, we increase the number of people in the market, and that is only good for the world.

By the way, the global multiplier (i.e. for every dollar spent that generated) is not negative.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]When you spend more money in foreign aid than "purchasing power" returns...you're losing money. There is no business endeavor that would ever run their business like the government runs.....or they won't be in business for long. You want to compare government to business....well that's the cold hard fact. And continue as a government to run like an insolvent business and it will erode the country.

You can, however, trade with healthy countries that don't drain your country to get some puny purchasing power. That is win win for both countries.

That's false. What exactly can't we get here if we want to do so?

LJS9502_basic

What? more people entering into the market is a good thing. It doesn't matter if we have a CAD with Saudi Arabia... because we might have a surplus with the Europeans, and the Saudis might buy from them. See? The total amount of defecits equals the amounts of surpluses. By investing in foreign economies, we increase the number of people in the market, and that is only good for the world.

By the way, the global multiplier (i.e. for every dollar spent that generated) is not negative.

I see you've ignored my point. You said you studied economics, yet you don't realise that this kind of investment doesn't pay off overnight. You advocate cutting foreign aid spending (only a small $33bn), when this will only hurt relations and any kind of market entrance. If nobody enters the market at all, the problem only grows worse. Do I have to explicitly state everything? These points have been in my posts for a very long time!

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu"]You can't compare the federal budget to a household check book. The two are completely different and have no relevance with one another. LJS9502_basic

I see you've ignored my point. You said you studied economics, yet you don't realise that this kind of investment doesn't pay off overnight. You advocate cutting foreign aid spending (only a small $33bn), when this will only hurt relations and any kind of market entrance. If nobody enters the market at all, the problem only grows worse. Do I have to explicitly state everything? These points have been in my posts for a very long time!

Firebird-5

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

I see you've ignored my point. You said you studied economics, yet you don't realise that this kind of investment doesn't pay off overnight. You advocate cutting foreign aid spending (only a small $33bn), when this will only hurt relations and any kind of market entrance. If nobody enters the market at all, the problem only grows worse. Do I have to explicitly state everything? These points have been in my posts for a very long time!

LJS9502_basic

Please read the post above yours. You must have missed that lesson in your economics class. america is in an economic downturn right now and cutting aid and trying to return to a surplus would probably send it into another recession.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu"]You can't compare the federal budget to a household check book. The two are completely different and have no relevance with one another. -Sun_Tzu-

I'm not concerned with creditors. I'm concerned with fixing the domestic issues which cost money. Money that is going over seas.