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 (217547)	2/5/2005 12:59:13 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573213

Why do you think we need to spend 10 times what any other country in the world does for defense? globalsecurity.org

To: TimF who wrote (217547)	2/5/2005 1:13:21 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573213

Tim, Re: If it was only $100bil or even $60bil it still would be a lot of money that isn't counted in the official defense budget. But then you would have to do the same sort of calculation for social security and Medicare and all other federal programs to get a complete picture. You have a basic misunderstanding of the finances of the Federal Government. First of all, the great increase in deficit spending is directly attributable to the mad spending binge that Ron Reagan and his cronies went on when they started the massive buildup of the military after 1981. This timing had absolutely nothing to do with the ending of the Viet Nam War. It had everything to do with a political decision on the part of people like Navy Secretary John Lehman to purchase scores of new (and unnecessary) Navy ships throughout the 1980s. Lehman knew full well that this was grotesquely in excess of any conceivable rational response to a threat from any other nation on the planet. He also knew that such profligate spending would eventually bankrupt the United States. But he didn't give a damn. Nor did Ron Reagan. All they cared about was the political opportunity for themselves by providing hugely profitable contracts to their donors. The whole scam is rotten to the core. It's all about political power for its own sake and not at all for the sake of the rational defense of the nation. As to the calculation of Social Security surpluses, you seem to not be well informed. What you will find when you start to pay some attention to reality is that, historically speaking, the Social Security fund was truly in danger of going bankrupt in the early 1980s, and that there was a blue-ribbon commission formed, headed by Allan Greenspan, which had Congress raise the rates on payroll taxes from 9% to 12.4%, effective in 1983. This was a huge boost to the finances of Social Security which has run a surplus that currently amounts to about $1.4 Trillion. tinyurl.com So, not only is it off the mark for you to suggest that a calculation of Social Security would show it to be responsible for part of the debt, in fact the exact opposite is the case. Without the deception of the $1.4 Trillion in I.O.U.s deposited in the "lockbox", i.e. Social Security Trust Fund by Congress, the publicly held national debt would be currently in excess of $8 Trillion and the interest on the debt would be increased by about 15-20%. In other words, the Social Security Trust Fund is being used to mask the real red ink in the discretionary side of the Federal ledger. For war toys like the newest aircraft carrier, the George H.W. Bush, for example. You know what I find to be one of the most irritating aspects about being an American today? It is that the fans of George Bush seem to understand so little about how the real world works, and seem to completely happy about soaking their minds in endless propaganda, disinformation and superstitious religious claptrap. If America had a collective brain, we sure wouldn't be in the fix we are in today, with a burgeoning and completely immoral elite leading a shrinking and credulous middle class over the cliff into a finacial abyss. *** One of the most astute observers of the Social Security conundrum is Caroline Baum, a columnist at Bloomberg News. Here's what she's written recently: bloomberg.com And I do need to give credit where credit is due. She's been writing about Social Security and the Federal Debt for years, and I've learned more from her than from almost any other observer. My observation is that only Paul Krugman matches her intellectually in the popular print media.