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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (69579)	5/31/2008 7:50:15 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542169

My key point is that the size will be primarily determined by what we can afford. That seems bass-ackwards to me. We should be looking at what we want to accomplish, then see what it would cost. If the price is too high, we may need to prioritize, but cutting the military to raise a set dollar amount needed for some other venture is not the way to go. It will result in a significant with drawl from the world stage. If we do that, it should be because we determine it to be the best course of action, not to cut the budget. I happen to think it may well be the best course of action, but that requires a lot of thought and debate, not the crude chopping of the budget ax.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (69579)	5/31/2008 9:05:43 AM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542169

Bob; My key point is that the size will be primarily determined by what we can afford. It will result in a significant with drawl from the world stage. Explains the huge size of our militry - why, because we can afford it. Should China grow their military as fast as their economy - because they can afford it? And India? Paints a mighty bleak picture going forward. steve