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: tejek who wrote (219831)	2/19/2005 10:57:17 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574724

What does that have to do with Saddam? It was Iran we were trying to keep in check, not the Soviets. It had nothing to do with Soviets. The goal was to keep either side from winning. It went on for 8 years Al

To: tejek who wrote (219831)	2/19/2005 1:09:56 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574724

Ted, Not 3/4.....roughly half. I'm doing the math here. According to my source, defense and homeland security made up 17% of the total expenses. If that 17% represents half of discretionary spending, then that means 66% of total expenses is mandatory. Then I said "Up to 3/4 of the federal revenues are tied up in "mandatory" spending." Since revenues are lower than expenses, "mandatory spending" will obviously represent a larger percentage of revenues compared to its percentage of expenses. Here are my figures: Total Revenues: $2,350B Total Expenses: $2,763B Military: $358B Homeland Security: $117B (My figures include SS as part of the revenues and expenses. If you separated out SS from the rest of the budget, which I advocate, then you'll have to subtract $733B from revenues and $578B from total and mandatory expenses. Unfortunately, that would still leave the rest of mandatory expenses at 3/4 of the remaining revenues.) Tenchusatsu