10-23-2002, 09:33 AM | #1 |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Get your defense contractor hot buy tips here:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/...sp?special=war Iraq war or no, D.C. is gearing up for the biggest spending since the "defense spending bonanza of Reagan." How much is enough and how much is too much where defense spending is concerned? Does it anger anyone else (I mean other taxpayers) when there is unnecessary defense spending just as much as it angers you when there is other big gov gluttony? What about our defense-budget and other money program dollars that are going to Pakistan and other nations to buy weapons? Will that bite us in the ass one day the way the stingers we sent to Afghanistan almost did? [edit] One further note. The article points out that, short term, defense contractor stocks will drop once the war begins. As well, the Iraq war will not use enough equipment to really boost the economy (the stock picks are based on long term budget plans). I've pointed out the cure for this problem already: We should drop tanks and helicopters on Baghdad rather than bombs. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [ 10-23-2002, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ] |
10-23-2002, 09:41 AM | #2 |
Zartan
Join Date: March 11, 2001
Location: North Carolina USA
Age: 57
Posts: 5,177
|
$500 hammers and $2000 toilet lids really tick me off , but I believe the recent 11% increase in the defense budget is justified.
With everything that's going on in the world it doesn't seem unreasonable, although I can't argue it on a "line for line" basis. I was especially glad to hear that the defense increase actually includes a 4 plus percent salary increase for the men and women of the armed services. [ 10-23-2002, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]
__________________
[img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" /> |
10-23-2002, 09:44 AM | #3 | |
Zartan
Join Date: March 11, 2001
Location: North Carolina USA
Age: 57
Posts: 5,177
|
Quote:
I don't think I remember you saying that before. Are you really sure you've said this more than once? LOL
__________________
[img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" /> |
|
10-23-2002, 09:59 AM | #4 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
10-23-2002, 10:03 AM | #5 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
[ 10-23-2002, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ] |
|
10-23-2002, 10:31 AM | #6 | |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Quote:
B. I represent lots of government contractors. You've accused me of not knowing didly about defense spending before, and it's time I point this out. I know a lot more than you think I do about the Federal Acquisition Regulations and how strict the government is regarding its contractors. Quit attacking me and stick to the topic, if you don't mind. |
|
10-23-2002, 10:35 AM | #7 | |
Jack Burton
Join Date: October 16, 2001
Location: PA
Age: 43
Posts: 5,421
|
Quote:
__________________
"Any attempt to cheat, especially with my wife, who is a dirty, dirty, tramp, and I am just gonna snap." Knibb High Principal - Billy Madison |
|
10-23-2002, 10:52 AM | #8 | |
Zartan
Join Date: March 11, 2001
Location: North Carolina USA
Age: 57
Posts: 5,177
|
[quote]Originally posted by MagiK:
Quote:
The bureaucracy that is our government is wasteful from the city level on up. I didn't imply the current spending was riddled with this type excess, I simply made a point. I believe defense spending needed to be increased, but I'd like it done "without the fat". Just as I'd like everything else our government does to be "low fat". Now if politicians could learn those hard learned lessons apply to all aspects of governmental spending(pork barrel anyone?), and that defense isn't a "whipping boy".... [ 10-23-2002, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]
__________________
[img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" /> |
|
10-23-2002, 11:01 AM | #9 | |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Quote:
Any time the government touches money a percentage of it is wasted - let's just call it "shrinkage" of our national inventory. Unfortunately, someone has to take care of society's little externalities. If we didn't allocate money to buy public goods, they would never be procured. |
|
10-23-2002, 12:06 PM | #10 |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Perhaps of further interest on this topic, NYTimes today:
Bush Signs $355 Billion Military Spending Bill By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 11:44 a.m. ET WASHINGTON (AP) -- With strokes of his pen Wednesday, President Bush signed into law a bill he touted as giving the military ``every advantage required'' to wage an expensive, no-end-in-sight global fight against terror and possibly Saddam Hussein. ``Since September 11, Americans have been reminded that the safety of many depends on the courage and skill of a few,'' Bush said before signing legislation providing a hefty increase in defense spending and financing for military construction projects in 2003. ``The bill today says America is determined and resolute to not only defend our freedom but to defend freedom around the world, that we're determined and resolute to answer the call to history and that we will defeat terror,'' Bush told a Rose Garden audience of mostly uniformed military personnel, along with a handful of lawmakers. The measures were the first federal spending bills to become law -- three weeks after the start of the 2003 budget year. Lawmakers who were deadlocked over spending decisions and anxious about midterm elections left Capitol Hill last week to campaign. They plan to finish the other 11 required spending bills in a lame-duck session after the Nov. 5 voting. The $355.4 billion defense bill, approved with overwhelming support to provide most of what Bush requested, increases spending by more than $34 billion over the previous fiscal year. Bush sought $367 billion, but ran into bipartisan resistance to his proposal for a $10 billion fund he could tap without congressional input for combating terrorists overseas. Bush noted the many tasks being placed on the military's shoulders: ``bring justice to agents of terror ... liberate a captive people on the other side of the Earth ... prepare for conflict in Iraq if necessary ... serve in many places far from home and at great risk.'' ``We owe them every resource, every weapon and every tool they need to fulfill their missions,'' the president said. ``The best military in the world must have every advantage required to defend the peace of the world.'' With a day of work in Washington sandwiched between campaign swings and other travel, Bush was urging the Senate later Wednesday to follow the House's lead and approve legislation to bypass a Supreme Court decision that struck down a ban of computer simulations of child pornography. Bush was hosting a private forum on the sexual solicitation and exploitation of children over the Internet, followed by the public address. The events are a follow-up to the Oct. 2 White House Conference on Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children. Bush focused most of his attention and remarks at the time on kidnapped children but noted that during a single year one in five children between the ages of 10 and 17 are sexually propositioned online. On Wednesday, he was also encouraging parents to teach their children about online safety. ``The threats to our children are found not just on our streets, but they're found in the technology which we use in our homes,'' Bush told the conference. ``With expanding use of the Internet and the heightened activity of predators searching for underage victims, more children are being lured into harmful and even tragic situations.'' In April, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional and too broad part of a 1996 law intended primarily to stop pornography produced through computer wizardry that was not available when the court placed child pornography outside First Amendment protection in 1982. Free-speech advocates and pornographers challenged the ban on material that appears to be a child in a sexually explicit situation or that is advertised to convey the impression that someone under age 18 is involved. The bill Bush was promoting would prohibit the production, distribution and possession of any visual depiction, real or electronic, of prepubescent children engaged in sexually explicit conduct. With the military moving toward a war footing with Iraq, the defense measure increases spending in almost every area, from weapons procurement to payroll. It includes a 4.1 percent pay raise for military personnel and almost all the $7.4 billion Bush requested to keep developing a national missile defense system. ------ The defense bill is H.R. 5010; the military construction bill is H.R. 5011. On the Net: White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov Bill texts, Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stock cabinets | Xiphias | NWN Mod: Escape from Undermountain | 0 | 09-01-2006 06:27 PM |
Need some help via the Stock Market | Gangrell | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 3 | 11-03-2004 11:29 PM |
Your AOL/Time Warner Stock is Going down the Tubes | Timber Loftis | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 5 | 05-06-2003 03:04 PM |
Stock exchange | Blade | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 3 | 09-11-2001 01:01 PM |
Take stock provisionally | Fallagar | Wizards & Warriors Forum | 1 | 06-04-2001 02:33 PM |