...

CW>>Speaking of wild spending, I understand that we need to spend money
CW>>on  military matters in order to protect ourselves, and don't have
CW>>much of an  issue with that. But I was reading an article on CNet,
CW>>where the pentagon was  funding a robotics company to produce robotic
CW>>cheetah prototypes. That seems a bit excessive even for the "future
CW>>military" thing. I can think of about a  hundred better ways to spend
CW>>that money, half of which would probably protect  our troops withount
CW>>needing to go "Terminator" on them. *rolls eyes*

CW>>If you're interested, there article is at
CW>>http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20037213-1.html?part=rss&subj=new
CW>>s&tag=254 7-1_3-0-20

 JB> Typical guns and butter debate. Military spending equals
 JB> less than 16% of the federal budget whereas entitlement
 JB> spending is close to 40%.  The bottom line is that the
 JB> government is very inefficient and there is plenty of room
 JB> for trimming and cutting.

 Entitlement is a vague term. The military includes veteran's
 benefits, medical care for the seriously wounded, and nuclear
 weapons research and maintenance, none of which are counted as
 part of the military budget.

 Guns and butter should not be a debate, we need both. Now poor
 nutrition and deprivation of educational opportunity are
 problems that affect the military. It all ties together in the
 long run.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... All taglines are currently busy.  Please try again later.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
 * Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)