Quote:
Originally posted by Agamemnon+Dec 30 2004, 10:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Dec 30 2004, 10:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Dec 30 2004, 10:29 PM
If I was reading it right, its $10 billion a year over six years on a $420 billion annual budget. That's 2.4%.
Cowperson
|
Yep, that's what the article says. Like I said, 60 Billion dollars sounds like a lot more than 2.4% (ie, if you were to hear one #, you might react differently than if you heard the other #).
$60 billion can feed the world for a year, 2.4% of the US military's budget is a 'drop in the bucket' for the military. Same #, two perspectives I guess is what I was getting at
[/b][/quote]
I didn't say it wasn't a big number or that it wouldn't solve world hunger.
I said it was 2.4% and it wasn't a big deal on a $420 billion budget.
In 1984, I was wandering around LA (with a sleeping bag in the back of a Chevette) and noticed the LA Times had one section for normal help wanted career ads and three sections for militiary industrial complex type jobs. That was right around the time Reagan was really getting going building up the US military. And right around the time the USA seemed to really begin jump starting itself out of the effects of the 1981-82 recession.
Does that have anything to do with this? I have no idea. Just me poor head wandering late in the day.
Cowperson