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: American Spirit who wrote (159983)	2/4/2003 12:51:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583507

A reduction was a good idea (not needed but a good idea). The reduction could easily be more then 5% and be a good idea, but it went to far. It did not go 5%, by many measures it was closer to 50%. Tim

To: American Spirit who wrote (159983)	2/4/2003 3:29:43 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583507

AS, <I just posted the LA Times saying Clinton reduced by 5%> Get your facts straight. Where in the LA Times puff piece did it say that Clinton reduced military spending by only 5%? All I see is this quote: It is true that today's military is showing signs of wear and tear and that overall readiness has declined from the years of the Bush presidency. Notably, the readiness levels of many types of aircraft have dropped by about 5 percentage points over the past decade. The readiness levels are down only 5% (if that can even be quantified), but that says nothing about the overall size of the military or the defense budget. In any case, it amuses me to see someone pretending that Clinton and Gore are friends of the military. They aren't. Tenchusatsu