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: tejek who wrote (178249)	1/12/2004 5:36:15 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 1576360

Forget the GDP, our gov't spends 16% of its budget on defense. The GDP is a better measure of the burden for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that if other spending increases the burden the spending for defense is more painful but the percentage of government spending would go down. If defense spending was 90% of federal government spending it would not indicate that much about defense spending, it would just indicate that the government doesn't spend as much on other things. I wonder why you want to focus on the % of federal spending. The main reasons seems to be that it results in a higher number, but that higher number doesn't mean much. Its a higher % of a different thing. The amount spent on defense doesn't change. But after saying that I will forget GDP for a second. The percentage of the federal government budget spent on defense is lower then it has been for most of our nations history. Of course a large part of the reason for this is that non-defense spending used to be much lower but that just highlights the problem with using the % of government spending number to measure the burden of defense spending. our gov't spends 16% of its budget on defense. That's a sign of paranoia. 16% of federal outlays is hardly a sign of paranoia. I don't think any way of measuring it shows as paranoia but if your going to try to argue that any measure shows paranoia you might do better with the total dollar figure or the % increase since Bush came in to office. Neither of those show paranoia either but at least I can see how some people might think they do. We have the capability to fight 2-3 wars........ole Rummie said so himself. We could maybe pull of two wars Iraq's size, if we went on full war footing and didn't care about having any ground forces as a strategic reserve. If the 2nd war wasn't in Korea we would have to pull our forces out of Korea to deploy for the wars, the same also goes for Europe and probably even Afghanistan. We would also need some time to move all the forces in place. Iraq was a stretch . 2 Iraqs would be a big enough stretch to cause problems. 3 wouldn't be doable without expanding the size of the army. While some of our people go hungry and live in slums. Yeah, real good thing! If our defense budget went to $0 some people will still go hungry and live in slums. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next