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: TimF who wrote (49344)	2/23/2012 12:29:30 AM
From: RMF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

When you spend $700 Billion on defense then it IS driving the deficits. It's driving it $700 Billion worth. I'm not saying to "eliminate" defense. I'm saying that we should stop let it be a "blackhole" of spending. Let's bring some troops home. Do we need so many troops in Europe? The Germans seem to be doing O.K., how about we let them provide MORE of their defense spending. Do we need as many troops in S. Korea as "sitting ducks" to deter the N. Koreans? What about those TWO engines that were being built in two different states for the same plane. I know that Senators and Congressmen from both those states liked the staus quo because it provided jobs, but was it really wise? There's a lot of WASTE in defense spending and I think it actually makes our defense capability LESS and not more. When Reagan ran he made a Big Deal of our National debt. Then he TRIPLED it in 8 years. (You'll notice I haven't mentioned economic growth this time..) We had economic growth, but that would have been IMPOSSIBLE to avoid after he spurred Volker to raise interest rates to over 20% and then gradually lower those rates from then on after squeezing every drop of inflation out of the economy. As inflation was being squeezed out, Keynesian economics was coming in with annual deficits rising from $70 Billion per year under Carter to $200 Billion per year under Reagan. The economy would have grown anyway, but the excess spending from the tax cuts put even more money into the economy. You yourself say, "The deficits when Reagan was president were bad by that measure, a new post WWII high". You say that Obama's deficits are terrible (and I agree) but how much of those deficits are because of "increased" government spending and how much of those deficits are because of "decreased" government revenues? I would assume that revenues have been down, but I don't know the actual figures. Tim, I'm not really a "partisan" guy. I try to put Country ahead of Party. Tom Jefferson and John Adams weren't able to do that but I'm easier to get along with than those fellows...lol