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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (177343)	11/1/2003 8:35:17 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573427

Ten, re: Spending grew 7.9% in 2002 (probably due to 9/11) and 4.2% in 2001. In comparison, spending grew between 2% and 4% annually under Clinton, except for 2000 when spending grew by 5.1%. It's a fair guess that most of the spending controls under Clinton were accomplished via military cutbacks, i.e. the so-called "peace dividend" that turned into more spending for social programs. Not a bad record for Clinton, could have been better. You take the Bush increase of almost 8%, and start compounding it, you will see much bigger government. Then you cut the income side, and you see a government deeply in debt. Most of the states have to have balanced budgets, why not the federal government? You want to have a multi-year adventure in Iraq; first destroy it, then turn it into a US welfare state, then rebuild it, all with US taxpayer money? Fine, sell it to the American public with a price tag, a tax increase to pay for it. Every penny spent in Iraq comes out of our pockets, or our childrens pockets, with interest. Would I rather pay for a meal for 10,000 homeless folks in NYC than drop one bunker buster bomb? Yes. We've got a bunch of free spending warriors in the White House. The war on terror is a joke, you don't fight ghosts with tanks. We've got armed forces that are (my WAG) 3 times the strength of any other on the globe; do we need them to be 5 times as strong? You don't need that strength for defense, your need that strength for pan Americana, spreading your political and social agenda. That's not the American tradition, which is a very reluctant warrior, slightly isolationist. Spend some time on the web pages of the Project for a New American Century, and you'll see what these guys are up to. The world as a whole was gradually sliding toward peace before Bush, now we are going the other direction. And the American public is footing the bill in lives and dollars. Can you really say this is a good thing? John