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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (39263)	12/4/2009 4:45:30 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

A trillion and counting for the wars? Perhaps, at least not a huge amount less than that. Meanwhile its been over $19 tril on other expenses (and thats not counting any FY 2001 funds spent after the wars started, or any FY 2010 funds at all) on other things, and the larger effort for "the wars" is winding down, while other spending continues to grow. The whole "wars" spending is something like 1% of GDP. Afghanistan spending is closer 1% of the federal budget, perhaps accelerating to 2% for a time with the new surge. Raising tax rates, during a recession, because such a relatively small expense is what's really stupid and disingenuous. If we are to raise taxes at all (and now is not the time), it should be to address the cost of runaway non-Afghan war spending. Your focusing on the tiny spec on the front of the cars paint job when the back end is rusting away. But better than raising taxes is just to finally have some restraint on spending.