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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (21023)	1/11/2005 2:01:32 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

My point is the whole idea of judging effectiveness currently is a subterfuge to get at programs and gut their funding. If things can be proven to work to the opposite of their intent they should be gutted. Why why why would you want to keep something that works against your original purpose? Because it had good intentions?! They never seem very anxious to quantify the effectiveness of the military spending though. Defense spending as a percentage of the GDP and a percentage of Federal outlays has dropped significantly since the year I was born, 1954. In 1954 the percentage of Federal outlays which went to national defence was 69.5% and 13.1% of the GDP. In 2004 those numbers were 19.6% of outlays and 4% of GDP. You do the math. OTOH the opposite can be said for Federal outlays which are payments to individuals. In 1954 payments to individuals were a quite manageable 17.8% of Federal outlays and 3.3% of the GDP. In 2004 they were 60.7% of outlays and 12.3% of GDP. whitehouse.gov There is a very large elephant in the room and you want to ignore it and concentrate on the dog laying in the corner.