...   
      
   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)