Does the US NEED to react? China has a prototype stealth fighter. The NATO has tons of stealth fighters and bombers that are ready for combat. The Chinese fighter has not shown its actual combat abilities yet, there's more to a 7th generation fighter jet than just stealth.

I kinda doubt that China's ability to project force is limited by their planes not being stealthy. Sure, that improves their ability in air combat but it's the simple logistics that they lack in. The US is far more capable of moving people, equipment and supplies around the globe. A stealth fighter won't do you any good if you cannot keep it supplied with ammo and fuel. The further away its supplies are the more time it spends traveling back and forth between its home base and the combat zone, giving it less combat time and likely less payload per run. That was one of the issues with the Me 262 back in the day, the places where the Luftwaffe wanted the things were too far away from the airports they had so the jets arrived with so little fuel they almost had to turn back right away. So much for superior technology.

And then there's the issue with stealth not being a on/off thing, stealth comes in varying degrees and while a plane may be stealthy that doesn't mean it's completely invisible. E.g. the F35 is significantly less stealthy than the F22 but it's so much cheaper that we don't care.

Germany didn't invent stealth, if that's what you're implying. The Ho 229 may have had a slightly reduced radar cross section but it was hardly a stealth plane and definitely didn't pioneer the principles of modern stealth planes. The design may look similar to the B2 but it's something completely different (for one thing the B2 is a strategic bomber while the Ho 229 was a fighter). The thing was from the early days of jet engines, it was simply someone trying to make a plane that's more maneuverable with those jet engines.

Cruise missiles and cross-country ballistic missiles, sure. Nuclear fission, yes. Stealth planes? Nope.

The point remains though, those two percentages measure completely different things.

I guess that means Dilbert was prophetic once again.

I doubt they cared about power. The summary says they're mostly immigrants and such, it's a very common tactic by scalpers to pay immigrants and such to stand in line and buy the early stock so they can then resell it for a premium. No idea how they keep the immigrants loyal enough to actually buy the thing and bring it over instead of running off with either the money or the device but it seems to work.

So where do you think that waste goes? When the govt buys a 10000$ hammer that's not 1$ to the hammer maker and 9999$ on the landfill.

Don't forget that both trade partners provide and demand. One provides money, the other provides goods or services. Only if both parties can offer their part and demand the other you get trade.

We ARE giving that money to people. Where do you think those taxes go? The govt does not have an income surplus, i.e. it spends every dollar it gets and then some. That spending goes somewhere. Be it help for the poor, hiring people to repair the streets, employing the police and firefighters, building up the military or whatever. All those recipients get money to spend that then goes back into the economy. Unfair? Who cares, the point is that the money must flow and by flowing it improves the standards of living for everybody. Taxes and inflation must make sure people can't act as money clots and block the flow, those who accumulate too much are pressured to keep it flowing. To keep society stable a certain amount of flow must go through every individual in it. Call it theft if you want, that doesn't change that it's a benefit to society and thus mankind.

Money exists to facilitate trade. The sum of all trade (this obviously includes trade for labor and such), not the sum of all money is the economy.

Funny thing about taking economies as a whole is that spending and earning are connected. Consuming more today lets the person you bought those goods from produce more goods tomorrow. However that guy you bought from needs to put that additional money into the same economy it came from in order to grow it, if he puts it outside the country or something then sooner or later too much money gets siphoned out of the economy and those consumers become unable to consume and thus generate income for the producer. That means the producer needs to get rid of his surplus capacity which means firing workers, those workers are then unable to consume. Get enough people unable to consume and the economy grinds to a halt. Neither the govt nor the rich must be allowed to accumulate too much wealth without spending it into the local economy again or the system grinds to a halt and the economy which is measured by the flow of money, not the total of it that is available, crashes.

Giving poor people govt handouts is indirectly subsidizing the businesses of the area (where else do you think they're going to put that money?).

Two possible threats are when the govt decides it must save money instead of reinvesting the money it takes via taxes and such, then it acts as a brake on the economy like in Greece.
The other threat is that one point in the chain of spenders and earners is unable to spend, e.g. when rich people cannot find investment opportunities and thus decide to sit on their money. That also acts as a brake on the economy because the flow of money gets stuck.

Failures amplify themselves as Greece has demonstrated, they increased taxes while cutting spending, thus increasing the friction on the economy. This included salary cuts and firings. That means fewer consumers. That means less income for the businesses. The economy slowed and the GDP collapsed. And then Greece stood there with even lower tax incomes, even higher debt to GDP ratios and even more problems.

Luxuries are fine but unlike the poor they don't spend 100% of their post-tax income, they invest a lot of it and investments are not complete spending, they're supposed to be earned back at some point so the recipient of them goes into debt. While the rich have a positive total balance the rest of the system develops a negative balance. When most people are in debt you run the risk of default chain reactions (e.g. with the mortgages the defaults led to a lower house value led to a lower total balance for other mortgage takers led to more defaults led to a worldwide financial crisis). When it happens across nations you get the EU where the rich states are building up a positive balance while the poorer ones are indebted to them. Then you get country defaults.

Let's worry about full employment when we reach it, the US is still recovering from a recession.

The report that's being suppressed in this story is pretty much the reason the growth the GOP wants never manifests: There's no connection between tax cuts and economic growth. Taxes are so low that they don't inhibit the economy so cutting them doesn't boost the economy either.

That's not counter to what he said, he just said that the GOP also cuts taxes along with that increased spending.

That's just vague terms, the specific numbers matter. Calculations that attempt to model Romney's plan reach the conclusion that it doesn't work and screws over the poor. The key issue is that reducing deductions cannot make up for much of a tax cut. With Romney's other planned income cuts and expenses that adds up to either driving the country into a massive deficit for little gain or requiring a tax rate increase.

It's a story about how nerdy things like numbers get pushed aside in favor of non-nerdy things like prejudices and gut feelings.