I'd also support Bee's thought that this should be continued. There's no real animosity -- an occasional shot, but no serious damage. Absent name calling, it should probably just be allowed to die a natural death.

And I'm actually learning a few things, though not in the intended way. As noted, my econ background is weak, so looking this stuff up is actually good for me. For instance, I knew little about the actual economics of the Great Depression (though had just finished The Worst Hard Time). So Travis' comment about '37 got me doing a small bit of research. The point of theory, as I said earlier, is it has to be testable or predictive and upheld by actual experience. Contrary to Travis' point, the second dip in the 30s actually confirms a relationship between government spending, economic recovery and unemployment. We apparently didn't learn what, for a long time, was a well-understood lesson. Everyone seems to forget that even Reagan increased gov't spending more than Obama during his recession.

And tdtz' link is a good example of the good humored irony we should all strive for. It's utterly wrong, of course, though really well done. The analogy between a family budget and a government with its own currency doesn't hold, but I'll spare everyone a reference. There's lots.

And it all does keep coming back to Harvey's who gets cut? Though I'd add where and how do we get extra revenue? There is no way we can cut domestic programs anywhere near what's needed to cover projected problems with SS & Medicare 20 and 30 years out. Back to the pie chart -- that was accurate in the relative size of the sequestration cuts and its effect on budget, debt and deficit. Almost negligible. A lot of pain and risk for a negligible effect.

Oh, ps: Good one saltydog one hour of F-22 vs. ranger's salary: spot on! I didn't know that.

None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.