SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : The Trump Presidency
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: zzpat who wrote (68477)4/26/2018 12:30:23 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 358279
 
In 2000, the year of the highest surplus we spent the exact same on the military spending as we did in the last year of Reagan (1988)

Which was 12 years earlier, so less in real terms, and much less as a percentage of the federal budget. If the number in the military had staid the same inflation in military weapons cost, combined with increased personnel cost per person (in both nominal and real terms) would have made the military budget noticeably larger in 2000 then in 1988.

Without that reduction in force size there would have been a deficit in the year 2000.

The rest of your post seems to be trying to counter some argument against the cut back in force size which I didn't make. If one accepts that the cut back in size was a good idea, or even that it was too small, that the military should have shrunk further, it doesn't change the point that the reduction that did happen was a necessary condition for the brief surpluses that occurred.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News