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 (361203)	12/3/2007 1:47:49 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574054

That's nominal spending not inflation adjusted spending. Real spending was less in 1998 than 1991. Even just considering the nominal spending, from the peak to trough you get 305.1 to to 271. That's over a 10% cut before inflation. And a larger cut after inflation. Also the military was cut more than the dollar figure would suggest. Not only was military inflation larger than other inflation, but the costs to close bases and disband units was created by the cuts, its just that the savings where even larger. The military was slashed. You can't reasonably call cutting the number of army divisions almost in half anything else. In terms of the budget, well perhaps Clinton didn't save as much as I thought he would, but without the cuts in force size, the budgets would have kept growing throughout the whole period. You might have had $400 bil by 1999. AT the very least it would have been $350bil. That's a savings of about $70bil to $120bil. Not enough of a savings to eliminate the deficit if we had the same savings now but the remaining deficit would be rather small. And if you adjust for inflation (the savings where in 1990s dollars) you might have enough (in 2008 dollars) to eliminate the 2008 deficit.