Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: American Spirit who wrote (166777)	4/7/2003 11:48:36 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) of 1579824

So if Clinton gutted the military why were we so strong a year and two years after he left office? You really believe Bush, whose defense budget was lower than Gore's, suddenly transformed the military? Get a clue. 1 - Clinton gutted the military's size. Not the capability of those that where left except some of the units where kept at lower readiness before the end of his term Clinton started to correct that and Bush has pretty much finished the job. Fortunately our army is still big enough to easily handle this job so the size reduction hasn't mattered too much. 2 - A lot of the money budgeted before Clinton still had an impact in keeping the military strong during Clinton's term. All those new weapons that Reagan bought meant less new weapons needed to be bought when Clinton was president. But in the coming years some of them will have to be replaced. Since Clinton didn't spend as much to replace them Bush will have to have higher defense budgets then he would have otherwise needed. Clinton sort of pushed the problem out to the next administration. But I don't want to give Clinton too much blame here. A lot of the weapons systems didn't really need to get in to the pipeline until nor, or even until the next few years. Clinton was lucky in that regard. Reagan's earlier spending helped Clinton with his budgets. 3 - It doesn't matter if Gore's budget was larger or not. The point is that Bush's budgets have been large enough. Its not a contest to see who can throw the most money to the military. Its just a matter of adequate funding. These systems we're using now and all the training and tech takes 5-10 years to develop. The prep work was done during the Clinton era when we downsized from Cold War to rapid-response light high-tech precision mode. A lot of the stuff came to fruition during Clinton's years but work on precession weapons goes way back, even before Reagan. Your accusation of Clinton is just repetition of a gross GW Bush camopaign lie I'm not sure that I'm even making that much of an accusation against Clinton. He shrunk the military but to a large extent it made sense to do so. He didn't have to spend as much because all of the spending before him and the end of the cold war, now Bush has to spend more because of Clinton's reductions and the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. Yes Bush has vastly increased defense spending, but he didn't do it until AFTER 9-11. Smaller increases where proposed before then. Before that his only security-defense priority was SDI, a system which has no credible use against any existing threat. That is simply a false statement. Both parts of it are false in that SDI wasn't the only defense item Bush was pushing and its a very useful perhaps vital program. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next