Different way to look at the federal budget

[newsstand 0]

http://action.truemajority.org/ctt.asp?u=6074&l=275

Edited to make it clicky.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Jimbo 0]

Yeah, sure. Now that it's been explained to me in cookes it all makes sense.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[newsstand 0]

As I am sure you understood the point is that reallocating a small chunk of the existing budget could make a huge difference in the country and world without really sacrificing our defense.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[champu 1]

Damn, that was confusing...

Now maybe if he'd have used fuzzy wuzzy teddy bears we could have opened up a real communication channel.

[Gawain 0]

Oh yeah, that's objective.

Do some research, it's easily substantiated to say: "That presentation's stats are wrong."

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

As I am sure you understood the point is that reallocating a small chunk of the existing budget could make a huge difference in the country and world without really sacrificing our defense.

Yes, I understood. I also understand that the economy and the budget are large and complex enough that trying to explain them with cookies just doesn't work.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Oh yeah, that's objective.

Do some research, it's easily substantiated to say: "That presentation's stats are wrong."

But... but... someone sent it to me in my email!!!!!!!!! Come on! It was on the innernet!

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[newsstand 0]

These numbers are from 2001, prior to our increases.

http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/usdefense/Hellman031501.html

The U.S. military budget is more than twenty-two times as large as the combined spending of the seven countries traditionally identified by the Pentagon as our most likely adversaries ­- Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria ­- which together spend just over $14 billion annually.

The United States and its close allies ­- the NATO nations, South Korea, and Japan -­ spend more than the rest of the world combined. Together they spend thirty-seven times more than the seven rogue states.

The seven rogue nations, along with Russia and China, together spend $116 billion, less than one-half the U.S. military budget.

The United States alone spends more than the combined spending of next twelve nations.

---

Also an interesting Department of State report here

And from DoD themselves. here

So it is only $380 billion this year and not an even $400 billion.

What other figures are "wrong."

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[newsstand 0]

No kidding, it is a gross simplification but what is so hard to understand about taking 11% of the defense budget and spending it where it might do some good. Hell get real generous with the tax breaks and just give it back. Or pay down the debt we didn't have three years ago.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[newsstand 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh yeah, that's objective.

Do some research, it's easily substantiated to say: "That presentation's stats are wrong."

But... but... someone sent it to me in my email!!!!!!!!! Come on! It was on the innernet!

Hate to disappoint you but I've been playing in this sandbox since before it was cool. I don't trust just any old thing sent to me.

I do happen to trust Ben Cohen (Ben & Jerry's fame) and TrueMajority.org.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[newsstand 0]

Quote

Damn, that was confusing...

Now maybe if he'd have used fuzzy wuzzy teddy bears we could have opened up a real communication channel.

Why not try getting beyond the medium and look at the message.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Gawain 0]

Quote

These numbers are from 2001, prior to our increases.

http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/usdefense/Hellman031501.html

The U.S. military budget is more than twenty-two times as large as the combined spending of the seven countries traditionally identified by the Pentagon as our most likely adversaries ­- Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria ­- which together spend just over $14 billion annually.

The United States and its close allies ­- the NATO nations, South Korea, and Japan -­ spend more than the rest of the world combined. Together they spend thirty-seven times more than the seven rogue states.

The seven rogue nations, along with Russia and China, together spend $116 billion, less than one-half the U.S. military budget.

The United States alone spends more than the combined spending of next twelve nations.

---

Also an interesting Department of State report here

And from DoD themselves. here

So it is only $380 billion this year and not an even $400 billion.

What other figures are "wrong."

--Cuba -- Military Expenditure: Not available, est 4% of GDP ($30.7B) or $1.2B
--Iran -- Military Expenditure: $9.7B (FY00)
--Iraq -- Military Expenditure: $1.3B (FY00)
--Libya -- Military Expenditure: $1.3B (FY99)
--DPRK -- Military Expenditure: $5.2B (FY02)
--Syria -- Military Expenditure: $858M ("official" govt reports, CIA estimates 5.9% of GDP of $63.48B or $3.74B)

I didn't include Sudan because is was an ineffectual amount. According to my math, those figures could add up to over $21B. My source, CIA World Factbook.

China spends approximately $56B from the same source.

It all depends on the sources of information and lack of money does not equal lack of lethality.

Problem is, the structure of our budget cannot be compared to those of other countries. It is not and apples-to-apples comparison. Our accountabilities on a global scale dwarf those of every other country on earth. Our strengths lie in our economy, our ingenuity, and yes, in our strong military. Since we're at war, another $100B would've been in my budget.

The "social" programs that the aforementioned precious cartoon talked of cannot be solved by throwing money alone at it. Also, the value of the respective commodities is not an even comparison. US agriculture feeds 1/3 of the world. We're doing our part, believe me.

So, I'll settle on figures not being "wrong" per se, but they sure aren't 100% accurate, and given the motives of whatever that link was...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[newsstand 0]

Quote

I didn't include Sudan because is was an ineffectual amount. According to my math, those figures could add up to over $21B. My source, CIA World Factbook.

China spends approximately $56B from the same source.

So then we agree that the US spends something like 20 times what the seven baddies you have listed here spend. If you throw in a major trading partner then it drops to five times. Still a hell of a lot more than all our "enemies" combined. And apples to apples we should add up all our allies and include them in our figure.

Quote

It all depends on the sources of information and lack of money does not equal lack of lethality.

I think our sources pretty much agree.

Quote

Our accountabilities on a global scale dwarf those of every other country on earth.

Our self appointed accountabilities would be more like it. No I am not an isolationist but I don't think we should be the world's policeman either. Especailly when we only police those that are strategically important.

Quote

Our strengths lie in our economy, our ingenuity, and yes, in our strong military.

I agree with you on the first two points and don't have a problem with a strong military. I was a member of that group for over 10 years and around it for another five. I also know what happens at the end of the fiscal year when the unit hasn't used up its budget. New hats for everyone, lets have a barbecue, spend that money so we don't loose it in next years budget. Or what about projects the military doesn't want like the Osprey. Oh wait a congressman needs it for his/her district. Pentagon be damned build it anyway.

Quote

Since we're at war, another $100B would've been in my budget.

Not sure exactly but I think the number was $85B for last year for the war.

Quote

The "social" programs that the aforementioned precious cartoon talked of cannot be solved by throwing money alone at it. Also, the value of the respective commodities is not an even comparison. US agriculture feeds 1/3 of the world. We're doing our part, believe me.

So what is wrong with social programs. We are supposed to be a society. Kinder, gentler, compassionate and all of that rhetoric. The one main thing I don't agree with is trying to feed the world. We need to teach the world to feed itself. Part of the problem in third world countries is that well intentioned programs are reducing the mortality rate and so already overburdened systems are being hit harder by larger populations.

Quote

So, I'll settle on figures not being "wrong" per se, but they sure aren't 100% accurate, and given the motives of whatever that link was...

Before you dis the link why not check out truemajority.org. Simply an organization that is trying to get the government to listen to the people and not the special interests and big money. I don't agree with all their positions but the ones I do believe in I take action on as requested.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

The U.S. military budget is more than twenty-two times as large as the combined spending of the seven countries traditionally identified by the Pentagon as our most likely adversaries ­- Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria ­- which together spend just over $14 billion annually.

UH HUH! And if we didn't PAY our military we would spend less too.
Hell, I'm with you! Lets pull out of every country that we have a presence in. What would the human rights people do then?

Well I have an idea of what they would do. They would scream and rant and rave. Then we would put our military back in, then guess what. . .they would jump the fence again and start screaming. I say lets solve the whole problem and keepp Every Soldier Home.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[bmcd308 0]

Are you saying that we should pay our military wages similar to the wages paid to Chinese soldiers?

Are you comfortable trading technology for lives the way the Chinese military does?

If we have to spend 10 to 1 to kill their soldiers 100 to 1, that is fine with me. I would much rather have 1 American at risk in an F-15 to kill a bunch of our enemies than have a 100 on 100 brawl on the ground using broken bottles.

Comparing spending is just dumb.

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[newsstand 0]

Quote

Are you saying that we should pay our military wages similar to the wages paid to Chinese soldiers?

No, I have been one of those underpaid people. I am suggesting that like every other federal spending program there is a hell of a lot of waste. We have closed bases all over the world in order to cut costs yet spending continues to climb.

No amount of technology is ever going to do away with ground combat. Wars are won and lost on the backs of the fighting soldier, not by the Air Force, not by the Navy, but by the folks who go get in front of the bullets. The technology helps and we shouldn't be without it but I am far more worried about dirty bombs that I am missles so I don't think we should be spending on the latest version of star wars. If the pentagon doesn't want a weapon (Osprey) they should not be forced to buy it.

Additionally do you have any idea how far a Chinese soldiers pay goes in their economy? I don't so I don't know if they suffer or are living well. Comparing salaries is just dumb.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[storm1977 0]

Quote

So what is wrong with social programs. We are supposed to be a society. Kinder, gentler, compassionate and all of that rhetoric. The one main thing I don't agree with is trying to feed the world. We need to teach the world to feed itself. Part of the problem in third world countries is that well intentioned programs are reducing the mortality rate and so already overburdened systems are being hit harder by larger populations

The problem is with social programs are.... They are not a necessity in a capitalist society. If this were a socialist country maybe. But here in the USA we were founded as a country dedicated to hard work and prosperity. That means...No free rides.

We have had this debates sooo many times it makes me sick.

Ben & Jerry or whomever can walk to 10 miles from Burlington, VT into Canada if they want to live in a nonjudgmental socialist society.

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[hmatousek 0]

The general message to me was that the U.S. economy could be looked at a little more closely to support some issues that are effecting the citizens at home.

I am all for supporting our military but I support children too.

As I see it children are at risk in this country for many more reasons than I care to go into. I think the federal government does need to recognize this and support kids monetarily (sp?) and stop placing blame on parents, teachers, administrators, media, etc. As it stands right now the feds do very little for schools, most money right now comes from the state. Plus any money that is given to the schools is being threatened to be taken away if schools do not perform well on a test. Well what about the school that has 65% of the students who have English as a second language? Are those students expected to score as high as a student who grows up speaking English? Those of you who speak a different language will know what I am talking about. When GWB tells me all 3rd graders should be reading at a third grade level and at the same time is cutting ESL and special ed. programs I ask myself what world this man has been living in?

Just my opinion.

Heather

Life doesn't have to be perfect in order to be beautiful!

[wmw999 2,549]

Quote

Ben & Jerry or whomever can ...

Ben & Jerry are using the money they earned to do what they think is important. It doesn't necessarily agree with what you think is important.

Why exactly is this a problem in a capitalist society?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[EricaH 0]

Quote

here in the USA we were founded as a country dedicated to hard work and prosperity. That means...No free rides.

I'm in 100% agreement. Countries that have free rides typically also have a MUCH higher tax rate. No thank you, that's why my ancestors moved here.

As for our military spending, if we could get people to sign up as suiside bombers, then we could decrease spending A LOT!!

I paid 100% of my college tuition, and had to share a room w/ someone paying less than 10% - to me that's BS!

If you want it, work for it. I do. I'd LOVE to get section 8 housing status so I could live in a nice highrise on Lakeshore drive minutes from down town. Have the man pay for my food, have him school my children, protect me & all I have to do is stay out of a job.

There is no can't. Only lack of knowledge or fear. Only you can fix your fear.

PMS #227 (just like the TV show)

[newsstand 0]

Storm and Erica, hope you never need any help. If you loose your jobs I assume you will never file for unemployment.

Are the systems abused, yes, are they needed, yes. I am all for fighting welfare fraud. Almost certainly an agressive check up policy would pay for itself. That is why insurance companies have fraud investigation departments.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[EricaH 0]

If I need to file for unemployment I will, but I've been paying plenty into the system for the last 16 years.

Clean up the system, then I won't mind. In it's current state, I will never vote to add more money to it.

There is no can't. Only lack of knowledge or fear. Only you can fix your fear.

PMS #227 (just like the TV show)

[wmw999 2,549]

Quote

Are the systems abused, yes, are they needed, yes. I am all for fighting welfare fraud

In a former life, I was a food stamp certification worker. I found that about 10% of my clients were considered fraudulent (i.e. they lied, not just made a mistake or misunderstood). Of that number, the majority would have been eligible for food stamps anyway, but just not at the rate they were getting.

They were poor. Just not quite as poor as they made out to be. Pretty sad, really.

Should fraud be fought? Definitely. But damn I'm lucky. Both in where/how/etc I was born, and in knowing what to do with it, and having parents who exposed me to enough to learn this stuff.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[EricaH 0]

I worked as a grocery store bag girl in high school. I saw kids from my school go through w/ their parents w/ food stamps. Their house was nicer than mine, they dressed better & then they were buying better food. AND I WAS BAGGING IT. These people didn't work, the teenage kids had children.

Parents are the biggest factor in the way a child grows up. My parents taught me to fend for myself. A good work ethic & to be cheritable where cherity is due.
To well off families, everyone knows that a pampered child (Paris Hilton for example), will grow up expecting to be pampered. How bout the flip side, a child that has been raised w/ the gov't paying for everything has a great chance of expecting that on an on going basis.

Fine, feed needy children, give them health care. But make someone responsible work for it. I mowed lawns when I was 6, washed cars for longer than I can remember. If they have parents, make the parents do something. Instead of the workers of America volunteering their time, have the people being fed free food help feed others. That way people generating the tax $ don't have to lose profitability & the people spending tax $ have something to give.

There is no can't. Only lack of knowledge or fear. Only you can fix your fear.

PMS #227 (just like the TV show)

[bmcd308 0]

>> I am suggesting that like every other federal spending program there is a hell of a lot of waste.<<

I do not disagree. But the flash thing to which your link referred did not discuss eliminating waste. It discussed cutting the military budget and using the $ for other programs.


>>No amount of technology is ever going to do away with ground combat. <<

Once again, I do not disagree. However, we have shown that some substitution of technology for manpower is not only possible but effective. In addition, we as a society have shown a great preference for placing as few individual lives at risk as possible. Americans are a lot more pi$$ed off when one of our sons or daughters takes a round on the battlefield than we are when one of our megabuck fighting toys gets brought down but the pilot is rescued safe.


>>Additionally do you have any idea how far a Chinese soldiers pay goes in their economy? I don't so I don't know if they suffer or are living well.<<

I don't really know for sure, either, so we probably shouold not have a prolonged uningormed debate about this. However, I lived in China for a little while, and there were not a whole lot of people there who struck me as wealthy by Western standards. Even if a soldier is well-paid in the eyes of his peers, they are not living a great lifestyle.


>>Comparing salaries is just dumb.<<

Perhaps so, but I think that comparing total expenditures is at least as dumb. As Americans, we have chosen not to go to war with low-wage, conscripted soldiers. That decision costs us money. We have also made the decision to substitute expensive equipment for human beings whenever possible. That decision costs us money, too. We have also made the decision to give our individual soldiers better training than their counterparts in many parts of the world receive so that they willbe more effective in battle and have a lower mortality rate. That costs us money.

I guess my point is that a good bit of the money we spend results from choices we have made about the relative value of our individual soldiers.

As far as boondoggled projects like Osprey and Star Wars go, those may well be tremendous wastes of money. I am not informed in that area. Once again, however, the link was not about discontinuing certain wasteful projects. Its message was that it would be very simple to take a few cookies from the fat cats at the Pentagon and solve all the world's problems with them. I really do not think that would work.

Brent

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com