Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (139563)	10/4/2001 11:15:29 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1580737

But to me that is not the significant measurement. GDP impacts the federal budget but there is not a direct correlation. Congress determines how much it will spend, not the GDP. You seem to be begging the question. % of the budget is important because that is how much of the federal budget it uses. My point is the true burden of the spending has nothing to do with how much the budget it uses but rather how it impacts the economy. If we slash non defense spending it doesn't make defense more expensive but your measure would say that it did. The GDP may be 1 trillion one year, and 2 the next but that does not mean military spending will be 3% of 1 trillion and then 3% of 2 the next. The overall federal budget can easily change far more rapidly then the GDP. So if you are concerned that such changes distort the level of defense spending the % of the budget would distort it more. It doesn't look like its going to continue to come down...spending is going over the top. See my post to Harry. I'd be willing to bet you $1000 except that bets over the internet with someone you have never physically met, and bets with a 10 year time frame might not get paid. (I'm not challenging your integrity with that statement or calling you dishonest.) Defense spending has been going down for over a decade, the increases in response to the events of 9/11 are just a blip on that trend. Also the economy IMO will continue to grow, as will the federal budget. I never said to cut back; I just don't want to increase for SDI. Even without SDI military spending increases will be needed if we want to maintain readiness, maintain our technological lead, and meet our current commitments. Every year the military screams we need all this money for defense to keep this country safe. And just about every year since 86 or 87 they have been getting less money for defense when measured in real dollars, % of the GDP, or % of the federal budget. We can only maintain the level that we have on today's budget because of all the weapons that where bought in the 80s. It is often said that B-52s are older then their pilots but soon our fighters and our tanks will start to be older then their crews. Most of them where designed in the 70s (or even late 60s) and built in the 80s. And with the force reductions, lowered readiness (including cannibalizing weapons systems for spare parts to keep atleast some of them working), and deployments in places like the Balkans, if we had to make another deployment like the Gulf War we could not do it. I love this country and am very proud of the principles to which it aspires, but what went on 9/11 makes me very sad. I agree with both parts of that sentance. Tim