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: TimF who wrote (184475)	3/10/2004 2:20:40 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572711

As announced on February 17, the release of the Producer Price Index (PPI) for January 2004 has been delayed from the originally scheduled date of February 19, 2004. The length of that delay now means that the release of February data originally scheduled for Friday, March 12, must also be postponed. stats.bls.gov The Bureau of Labor Statistics expresses its sincere apologies to those who have experienced any problems as a result of this delay.

To: TimF who wrote (184475)	3/10/2004 8:12:56 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572711

Tim, I noticed you didn't mention Vietnam. Regardless, Iraq is a skirmish compared to WW2, the Civil War or the Revolutionary War. And frankly, they are hiding the real cost of this war: Pentagon Pressed for Iraq War's Costs 1 hour, 21 minutes ago Add White House - AP Cabinet & State to My Yahoo! By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Pressed to estimate the cost of future operations in Iraq (news - web sites), the Pentagon (news - web sites) has repeatedly said it is just too hard to do. AP Photo Now the ranks of disbelievers are growing — in Congress and among private defense analysts. Some say the Bush administration's refusal to estimate costs could erode American support for the Iraq campaign, as well as the credibility of the White House and lawmakers. "It is crucial that we have every bit of information so we can level with the taxpayer," Democratic Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin recently told Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "We don't have that information now." "The White House plays hide and seek with the costs of the war," said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. The object of their ire is President Bush (news - web sites)'s proposed defense spending for the budget year beginning Oct. 1 — a $402 billion request that did not include money for the major military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites). It is not just Democrats who disagree with the administration's approach. Republican chairmen of the House and Senate budget committees have penciled in tens of billions of dollars for the two military campaigns — $30 billion in the Senate, an expected $50 billion in the House — in spending plans they began pushing through Congress this week. Asked at a recent congressional hearing why costs for Iraq were not included in the administration's budget, Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim replied: "Because we simply cannot predict them." Yet many contend the administration at least knows that roughly 100,000 soldiers will remain in Iraq for another year and could have budgeted an estimate or a placeholder request for that. "We know it will not be free," said Steve Kosiak of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Private and congressional analysts, in fact, have done a number of studies and projections of possible costs: _Daniel Goure of the conservative Lexington Institute said he expects troop levels to gradually drop over five years to one-half or one-third the present deployment — meaning 30,000 to 50,000 Americans troops could remain in Iraq through 2009. _The Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) a few months ago estimated the cost to occupy Iraq through 2013 at up to $200 billion, depending on troops levels. _Casualties could rise to at least 1,000, said a recent report by Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a frequent Pentagon adviser. "One thousand or more dead in Iraq is hardly Vietnam," Cordesman said. "But it must be justified and explained, and explained honestly." White House budget chief Joshua Bolten acknowledged in a briefing with reporters last month that the military will need money over and above the defense request — up to $50 billion the administration will seek in an emergency budget request for Iraq and Afghanistan. It used a similar supplemental spending measure last fall to ask for $87 billion for Afghanistan and Iraq But administration officials do not plan to ask for that supplemental, or specify what it might include, until sometime after Jan. 1, 2005 — about two months after November's presidential election. Had Bush included it in the budget proposal sent to Congress in February, the government's surging deficit problem would have looked even worse. Zakheim denied last month that the administration was waiting until January so Iraqi expenses wouldn't figure into Bush's re-election bid. That hasn't convinced everyone. "The American people are entitled to know before the election, not after the election, at least the estimated costs ... in dollars ... lives ... length of the occupation," said Byrd. Most of the Capitol Hill arguments have centered on whether war spending should be requested in the regular budget being discussed now or in the supplemental to come later. But Byrd, among others, notes that the government has not made public estimates of non-monetary costs, either. The Pentagon's refusal to estimate costs is the same stance it took before the war. For months leading up to the invasion, officials said they couldn't estimate because they didn't know how long it would take to fight the war. Within days after it started, however, the Pentagon sent Congress a request for $63 billion. "So you know they had it in their back pockets," all along, said Cindy Williams, a former congressional budget officer now with the MIT security studies program. Rumsfeld said at a recent hearing that he can't now estimate Iraq and Afghanistan needs for the budget year starting in October because there are so many uncertainties. Those include how violent Iraq will be then, the number of troops that will be required, whether allies might contribute forces and whether a new Iraqi government will let the U.S. military stay.

To: TimF who wrote (184475)	3/10/2004 10:56:46 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572711

Us National debt is about 70% of GDP now. It was about 128% at the end of WWII and didn't go below current levels until the mid 50s. I couldn't find hard numbers for the Civil War but I think the debt level was even higher then as a % of the GDP then it was after WWII. After the Revolutionary War government debt was also very high but I have no solid figures for it an a lot of it was state debt. Who cares what it was at after the Civil War? Look what's happening to it now thanks to the GOP. Its shocking what the GOP is doing to this country. Reagan porked at the trough. And Bush has resumed the porking where Reagan left off. If you doubt what I am saying, check out the graph at the site linked below. What are you all trying to do....destroy this country? ******************************************************* <font color=brown>National Debt as a Percent of GDP The History The national debt peaked at 120% of GDP in 1946 due to the war effort, but Roosevelt, Truman, Ike, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon and Carter all did their part to bring it back to pre-war levels, 32.5% by the beginning of 1981. Then, Reagan took office. The debt took off, rising non-stop for 12 years to 66.3% at the end of Bush's term, erasing 25 years of progress. Clinton stopped the bleeding in just three years and then dropped the debt from 67% to 57% in his last five years. Bush wasted no time in reversing this progress and is now forecasting that he will achieve the highest ratio of debt to GDP in 50 years—if we re-elect him.** Whose Numbers? The data plotted here were taken from the Historical Tables of the 2005 budget posted on www.Whitehouse.gov, Table 7.1, Gross Federal Debt as a Percentage of GDP. zfacts.com