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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (189)	11/9/2002 2:37:54 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

That amounts to nothing more than a technicality. The president proposes, and the president's party promotes budgets and spending. I have a feeling you and I may never agree on this subject. However, I would be remiss for not pointing out the following: (a) President Bush proposed a budget in May. It has, until this very day, sat on Tom Daschle's desk. This isn't a "technicality", it is a fact. Congress controls the purse strings; (b) It is a fact that spending increased under Reagan. However, it is also a fact that the previous administration had gutted the military budget and had Reagan NOT done that spending he may not have successfully ended the Cold War; (c) Under Clinton, the military budget was once again gutted in favor of social programs. It would be no surprise if Bush had to promote more military spending to get us to a point we have an adequate national defense. The real question is how should the money be spent. For me, national defense is the single most important expenditure the government can make. Others believe social programs are more important. There is adequate blame to go around. Teddy Kennedy brought home the bacon for the "Big Dig". Lloyd Bentsen brought home the bacon for the SSC. Robert Byrd brings home the bacon for every conceivable project the state can hold. Republicans do it, too; that's how they stay in office.