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: Peter Dierks who wrote (42888)	4/23/2010 12:00:09 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Canceling the F-35 jet fighter would save $42 billion over 10 years. Not really. We would have to replace it with something else. reestablishing production of upgraded versions of older planes like the F-15 would have R&D, production line, production, and training costs (and leave us with less capable aircraft). Restarting F-22 production would have a cost, and then each aircraft might be more expensive (hard to tell, it might not the way JSF/F-35 costs have escalated). A brand new design would probably be the most expensive route. Reversing the Army's projected troop increase would save $92 billion. Considering the fact that we've had some difficulty with force levels from Iraq and Afghanistan, this doesn't seem very prudent. We properly cut back a lot from the cold war era, but I think we went a bit to far. I wouldn't call for additional expansion of military spending beyond what is planed (except maybe for missile defenses), but cut backs or canceling planned increases, might not be warranted., for military reasons. In any case military spending is not the prime source of the budget problems. Its a declining issue, while entitlements are a rapidly expanding one. I would look to ways to make procurement more efficent, but that's not something you can just plug in a savings number for. It is hard to do (or it would have already been done), and whether you get any savings isn't certain, with the amount being very uncertain. A 50-cent gas tax increase would raise $605 billion. We already have too many tax increases either recently passed or scheduled to happen soon. Spending increases caused the problem. Spending decreases (or at least holding the line on further increases) should be what solves the problem. Ending the deduction for state and local taxes would raise $862 billion over 10 years. I don't like this because its a tax increase, but it does make some sense. Why reward states for high taxation, by reducing the impact of that taxation on the residents of that state? If this was done in the context of cutting or eliminating some other tax I'd be all for it.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (42888)	4/23/2010 9:38:13 PM
From: Wayners	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Dems and Republicans are looking at each other trying to get the other party to be the one forced to unmask the entitlement ponzi schemes and cut them to get the financial house in order. It's like that kid's game called don't spill the beans. Everybody is guilty of adding a precarious extra bean every turn, but whoever adds the last bean that brings them all crashing down gets all the blame and is out of the game. Persoanally since the Democrats are responsible for ALL of the entitlement ponzi schemes of Social Security (FDR), Medicare and Medicaid (LBJ), the Democrats and not the republicans are the ones who should take the fall. It's only fair.