it took decades longer to ruin your own country, after you have won.
It hasn't happened yet. All the GDP has done is tripled since the end of the Cold War.
Your dementia again... we have been over business practices that are illegal here before. Those companies are in the US since your virtually have no privacy laws whatsoever.
Who has ever done a Google search under duress? Has anyone ever been coerced into buying an iPad? Is it your position that any or all of those companies' customers have had a relationship with them that was not voluntary?
yes, many time. Almost no wait, and no bill. Universal single payer healthcare is awesome.
If you've ever been to the emergency room then you've benefited from defense spending. Unless you believe that you are of no value, then you cannot say that such spending is of no value.
money ain´t value.
Actually in the modern economic system money is value. We've been using fiat currency for quite a few centuries now and it works pretty well, but if you want to barter goods feel free.
Right, you are having troops where they are out of the pure good of your heard and not your own geopolitical goals, right..
That's not what I said.
Compound interests makes my argument stronger, because that would reduce the reduction required to have a sustainable budget.
How do you figure that? One thing compound interest does do, however, is make it take longer to pay off debts.
You would still have had the largest military on this planet if you had reduce your budget by just 30% or so.
The mission isn't to have the largest military in the world, the mission is to have a military that brings the capability necessary to protect American security around the globe. And to do so by a sufficiently wide margin. A good military can win a war, a great military doesn't have to fight a war.
if you had maintained a military budget at 60 or 70% of what you did have in the past it would have reduced your national debt to zero.
Show us the math to substantiate that claim.
Why would i answer nonsense questions?
I want to see you try and support your assertions with facts. But, it appears you have no interest in doing so and prefer the Trump method: say something ridiculous and when confronted with facts to the contrary either deny you said it or just keep saying it with no substantiation.
What Reagan exactly did to ruin the country doesn´t matter
It does if you are going to make the claim that Reagan ruined the country. If you're so sure he wrecked everything you should at least be able to explain what he did that was so bad.
it comes down´to debt and he is and will remain the biggest debt sinner.
You have made no attempt what so ever to explain how "it all comes down to debt" when it comes to making things good for the middle class. In addition, you have provided no objective measure by which Ronald Reagan is the "biggest debt sinner."
They have descendants.
How are you going to find them after at least a century? They didn't keep good records of who was related to whom and who owned what. Unless you can invent a time machine the information you would need to return the land to its rightful owners just doesn't exist.
If they don´t have them, make a national park of it.
So let me get this straight: The government comes in, steals land from the natives and gives it out to settlers. Your solution is to take the land back from whomever has it now, by this time not the people who took stolen land from the government, and carry out justice by handing it all back to the same government that stole it? The only entity to endure from the original crime, and the one that committed it, is the one that should get the land?
But good to know you think that the Nazis would have been perfectly fine to keep all that they stole from the Jews, if they had just managed to exterminated them all.
The Nazis were in power for twelve years, so less than a generation. And were in power during a time when record keeping was quite good. At the end of it the survivors knew what they had, where they lived, where their relatives lived and who their relatives were. The information to fix (some) things existed.
But then, according to you, Jews just lost their made up rights for a while and no actual injustice occurred.
Do you know that different countries have different definition of murder...
Find me one that doesn't involve doing something.
You don't see the morality in this issue?
Two entities enter into an economic relationship in which services are traded for compensation and both parties do so voluntarily. As far as being related to morality it is just like adultery: If you think it's immoral then don't do it. But stay out of other people's business.
You might not pay your neighbors premium but if your neighbors house burns down where do you think the money the insurance company uses to pay for the loss comes from? Here's a hint, from the money the insurance company takes in from other people paying premiums.
That's not paying for their insurance, that's being part of a risk pool.
People should enter economic relationships voluntarily, and that includes being part of a risk pool. People should be part of any risk pool they choose, if the risk pool chooses to accept them. Ask yourself why it wouldn't make sense to have a particular health plan and risk pool specifically for tri-athletes aged 18 to 35?
It should be obvious to any one that we all pay for things that do not directly benefit us in any way. So the argument that you should not have to pay for something that does not directly benefit you is bogus.
This statement rests on the erroneous assumption that I don't benefit from insurance unless I make a claim. It is similar to the, also erroneous, idea that I don't benefit from the presence of law enforcement unless I'm the victim of a crime.