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 (219792)	2/18/2005 9:57:31 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574854

re: Up to 3/4 of the federal revenues are tied up in "mandatory" spending that include housing, welfare, agriculture, and other programs that eases the burden for the poor. What % goes to the poor? What % goes to agriculture (not the poor). What % goes to veterans? What % goes to other retired government workers? Just because it's "mandatory", it doesn't mean it's for the poor. re: When you consider that there isn't much left for "discretionary" spending, your claim that we spend too much on defense falls flat. It's like the government taxing you 75%, and then claiming you're not generous enough with your take-home pay of 25%. No, it's like it cost you 75% of your take home pay just to live (rent, food, etc), and you can do what you want with the other 25%. Discretionary, get it? And 25% of the Federal budget is a lot more than "there isn't much left". John

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (219792)	2/19/2005 3:52:30 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574854

Ted, Yes, and why is that? ......because the rest of the budget funding is required by law. Exactly. Up to 3/4 of the federal revenues are tied up in "mandatory" spending that include housing, welfare, agriculture, and other programs that eases the burden for the poor. Not 3/4.....roughly half. When you consider that there isn't much left for "discretionary" spending, your claim that we spend too much on defense falls flat. It's like the government taxing you 75%, and then claiming you're not generous enough with your take-home pay of 25%. Excuse me, when did over $500 billion per year is an example of my argument falling flat. That's nearly 20% of a 2 trillion dollar budget. Flat? I think its very busty personally! If you were so against Saddam being in power, why did you not opposed Reagan when he was sending and selling arms to Saddam in the 1980s? We had the Soviets to worry about. What does that have to do with Saddam? It was Iran we were trying to keep in check, not the Soviets. ted