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 (372182)	2/27/2008 3:18:27 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575424

2 - The distinction isn't very meaningful in this context. Spending is spending. I don't care nearly as much about "percentage of discretionary spending" as I do about "percentage of spending". You may not but the government does. That's why they treat it as a different category. Since 2003 military spending has increased, but so has discretionary spending on non military items. The percentage would still be below the levels under Reagan, Bush I, or even the beginning of the Clinton administration (54.2). Damn right it has increased, a lot, especially if you include the supplementals. Under Bush, without the supplementals, military spending is up 30%. But its hardly the case the military spending is the main driver of spending even if you ignore entitlements and debt service. How can you say that? It's better than 50% of discretionary spending, and growing rapidly. And are tax receipts on the dedicated taxes of entitlement programs not also up? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They are but its irrelevant. Congress could double them tomorrow and the spending wouldn't be less of a burden, or it could half them and the spending wouldn't cost more. "It's the deficit stupid". You take the rise in military spending, on and off the books, and give it a dedicated tax and you wouldn't hear me bitch nearly as much. But I assume you would be against that transparency.