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: combjelly who wrote (613916)	5/31/2011 5:06:32 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583680

$62 bil is almost as much as $69bil, and represents a larger percentage decrease (18.3% vs 16.1%). In any case I was discussing force size not dollar amounts. In overall active force personnel levels, the cut backs where similar in number, and greater in percentage, under Clinton. In military terms the decline from the smaller base is more problematic (although certainly some decline was justified by the change in circumstance, represented by the end of the cold war). In budget terms Clinton is helped by Bush's cuts, not harmed by them (unless he had the goal of increasing military force levels, which he did not), they start him off on a lower base line, and then from that lower baseline he cut a larger percentage than Bush, before apparently finally realizing he went too far (or going along with others who where of that opinion) and increasing spending a bit. Note the budget in 1994 of $338 billion, which would have been Clinton's first budget. Clinton's cuts would have been from Bush's lasts budget, not his first. Bush's cuts would have been from Reagan's last. Considering that point Bush's cuts where from $426.4 bil to $358.6 for $67.8bil or 15.9%. Clinton's initial cut would have been from $358.6bil to $296.7. That's a 17.3% cut. For his whole time in office it would have been a 14.3% cut, lower than Bush's but not by much, and it was on top of Bush's cuts, and the force levels went down by a larger percentage than they did when Bush became president. Even in dollar terms, you own data shows that your claim that the reductions mainly ended under Bush I is false.