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: Road Walker who wrote (361174)	12/3/2007 9:48:07 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573924

""Slash" is hardly the word. Funny how you are against big government in any place except the military." And much of the so-called slashing occurred under Bush 1.

To: Road Walker who wrote (361174)	12/3/2007 11:45:13 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573924

"Clinton got to slash the military because of the end of the cold war." "Slash" is hardly the word. Unlike when the term is applied to mild reductions in social program, or even decreases in the expected rate of future increases of social spending, slash is exactly the word here. We went from 18 army divisions to 10. Cut over a hundred ships from the navy (and cut future shipbuilding funds enough to wind up reducing the future number of ships by about half), cut 20 wings of aircraft combined from the navy and the air force (a fighter wing is about 72 aircraft, but not all wings are that size for example we have 21 B-2 bombers in one wing, still your talking at least in the high hundreds range for aircraft cuts and possibly almost 1500). And military spending dropped from 20.7% of US federal government spending the year before Clinton to 15.3% in 1999 (and 15.6% in the year Bush took over). If we could cut 5.4% out of of the projected 2008 federal budget we would have a balanced budget.