Quote:
Originally posted by Cowperson@Dec 30 2004, 09:59 PM
Isn't the theory that governments overspend in poor economic times as stimulus and then cut back on expenditures when economies recover?
Its easy to spend but rare is the government that follows through with fiscal responsibility later.
Cutting $10 billion a year from a $420 billion military budget that had risen 41% in only three years really isn't a stretch. That's a cut of only 2.4 per cent.
One F-22, I think, costs about $1 billion, a pretty bizarre number when it might take a 2 cent seagull in an intake to bring it down. Then again, the USAF is probably still reeling from losing to the Indian Air Force and MiG's in maneuvers earlier in the year.
All in all, the overall cutbacks throughout the USA federal budget looks like a lame duck President beginning to prep his party's standing for the next election. And that would include a sharply lower American presence in Iraq by 2008, anywhere from zero to 50,000 soldiers in that country.
Cowperson
|
That's certainly the 'Reganomics' theory talking, spend when poor, cut when wealthy. I have no idea whether or not that works, I'm sure many don't subscribe to it totally. Also, the US economy would have to be 'healthy' for the cuts to start, wouldn't it? I know its recovering, but I didn't think it was 'great' yet by a long shot.
I just think it doesn't look great for a President who seems to lack total trust from the troops (esp after the armour fiasco) to go ahead and ask for the military to give some money back. It may be necessary, and even a good idea (as opposed to the whole spending like there's no tomorrow idea), but I can't see it looking good for him, from a soldier's perspective.