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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (133353)	10/23/2001 4:50:20 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

>> Let's see, the steepest cuts under 8% came under Pat's old boss, Dick Nixon,and under the other tricky-dick, Clinton. Difference is... << the lowest percentage levels under nixon were still above the highest levels of clinton. >> So, what's the magic number and how should it be spent? << certainly higher than it is now and where it was right before pearl harbor. >> Could some of the recent decline be evidence of productivity improvements in defense? << it's evidence of that pathetic excuse for a president clinton trying to keep his promise that the "era of big government is over." what the lying sack of shit should have really said was, "the era of an adequate and powerful military is over, so i am free to expand the rest of government in pursuit of my socialist agenda." >> Maybe we've been intervening in other states' sovereign affairs less often than we did in the '50s and '60s? << we spent 3 times as much as a percentage of gdp in the 50's and 60's. at least our politicians decided that if we were going to be interventionists we better make sure we don't write checks we can't cash.