Military spending 2006

[billvon 3,092]

> Don't give them money I agree with. If they try to kill us they die!

That's fine. We have to go the extra step, though - if they DON'T try to kill us we DON'T kill them, or invade them, or change their government, or support terrorists trying to kill them.

[jakee 1,582]

Quote

With a $3T budget it's closer to 17%. Divided by the 130M tax payers in this country it's $3846 for each of us.

Hey don't worry about it, it's all borrowed anyway.

It's your kids who'll have to pay for it, right?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The USA seems addicted to warfare and weapons. Outspending the next 10+ nations combined is just absurd. It just encourages unwanted interference with the affairs of other nations.

No, we're addicted to freedom, and I'm glad for that. To preserve freedom requires the means to defend it.

Most of those other nations are piss-ants which can't be compared to the U.S. - they're much smaller in population. Therefore, comparing military budgets is ridiculous. And they don't do nearly the amount of defense work that the U.S. does. It's not about comparing nations dollar for dollar, it's about comparing the job being done with those dollars. And having the economy capable of supporting that expenditure. I'm sure if China had a robust economy like the U.S., they would be far out-spending the U.S.

If you think the U.S. military budget is too much, then how much do you think we should be spending? Since you feel qualified to determine what "too much" is, then, like Goldilocks, you should have some idea of what "just right" is.

[jakee 1,582]

Quote

Most of those other nations are piss-ants which can't be compared to the U.S. - they're much smaller in population. Therefore comparing military budgets is ridiculous. Why don't you run those numbers on a per-capita basis and see how they come out.

Cool. Why don't you start with China, that dangerous militaristic regime?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Most of those other nations are piss-ants which can't be compared to the U.S. - they're much smaller in population. Therefore comparing military budgets is ridiculous. Why don't you run those numbers on a per-capita basis and see how they come out.

Cool. Why don't you start with China, that dangerous militaristic regime?

Then you have to adjust for local salaries and GDP and....aw, screw it, we know why the US spends more.

[billvon 3,092]

>No, we're addicted to freedom, and I'm glad for that. To preserve freedom
>requires the means to defend it.

That is quite correct. We need to defend the freedoms guaranteed us against people who would forsake them out of fear - and we need to defend ourselves against attack from our enemies.

>Most of those other nations are piss-ants . . .

You once again prove my point.

>If you think the U.S. military budget is too much, then how much do you
>think we should be spending?

I think if we had a military merely three times as strong as any other on the planet, that would suffice to defend ourselves from any conceivable threat. The reason we have such a large military now is that we periodically embark upon expensive and deadly ventures that often come back to bite us on the ass; it then takes even more money to clean up the mess we have made. Solution - use our defenses for defense, not empire building, democratic evangelism or winning votes.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

To preserve freedom requires the means to defend it.

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who didn't" - Anonymous

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Here's a news flash: Other countries can defend themselves. do you really think South Korea isn't strong enough to stand up to North Korea?

They got their ass kicked the first time, and the entry of America into the war was the only thing that got them half of their peninsula back. There's a statue of McArthur overlooking Inchon Bay, in honor of America saving them.

Do you think Taiwan can stand up to China?
Do you think Germany can stand up to Russia?
Do you think Israel can stand up to the entire muslim Middle East.
Do you think disorganized middle east nations can stand up to Iran?
Do you think France can stand up to the Canary Islands?

The only thing holding those aggressor nations back is the threat of America's military power being applied in defense. If America abandons them, they're gone.

But what do you care? It's all about "me", right?

[billvon 3,092]

>Do you think Taiwan can stand up to China?

Do you think Iran can stand up to Israel?
Do you think the freedom loving people of Kurdistan can stand up to Turkey and Iraq?

When will you push for the US to defend Iran and Kurdistan? Or do we only defend those people who like us?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

if they DON'T try to kill us we DON'T kill them, or invade them, or change their government, or support terrorists trying to kill them.

So if they kill other nations, or groups of people within their own nations, then we should just stand aside, watch, and do nothing?

Wonderful.

"In Germany, they first came for the communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.

Then, they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. 

Then they came for the Catholics.

I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak up."


- Reverend Martin Niemoller, German Lutheran pastor arrested

by the Gestapo, 1937, a decorated U-Boat skipper during WWI.

[billvon 3,092]

>So if they kill other nations, or groups of people within their own
>nations, then we should just stand aside, watch, and do nothing?

Like I said - when are you going to call for the US to defend Iran against the threat of Israel? Or are only certain groups of people "real" people worth defending?

I'll ignore the remainder of your post as a tribute to Mr. Godwin.

[nanook 1]

Quote

So besides "we can afford it" (ignoring the huge deficit, of course), what is the purpose in the USA spending 46% of the entire world's military expenditures? What has it achieved for us recently?

1. We have the largest military. We will always spend the most. Putting all the worlds' military expenditure into a pie-chart will always have 100% total to be subtracted from. When the War is over, the Chart will not change much at all. A lot of those countries are spending on the War too.
2. We are stakeholders in the rest of the world. What happens in any country, even third worlds, affects us greatly. And vice versa. What goods don't arrive after transiting the Malaca Straits has a direct effect on our economy and other countrys' economies. Same with other major canals, seaways, the Gulf, ect. ect. Sea lanes have to be actively managed by us and shit still goes down in them. And that's just the Navy's side. Most countries do not have the resources to protect themselves at all. This makes us step up to the plate primarily for our own interest and secondarily, for theirs(because it affects ours sooner or later)

3. Beaurocracy. BikerBabe gave you an insight of how we spend our money. Truth is, the military is not a for-profit organization. It never will be. A business makes money by making more money than it spends. The military, and Govt, only spends. The funds are purely appropriated, not created by a business plan. Because of this, the most efficent way to keep tab on spending is the Beaurocratic Process. It is impossible to use the Business model to help save money or run the military. The whole infastructure/plan/process is so vastly different.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

> Most of those other nations are piss-ants . . .

You once again prove my point.

You should be better than to take things out of context to score cheap points. I expect that from others, but not you.

For the record, my entire sentence was:

"Most of those other nations are piss-ants which can't be compared to the U.S. - they're much smaller in population."

So you see, it was about comparing budgets for nations of widely disproportionate sizes. Comparing the U.S. to Italy, for example, is stupid. That's an invalid way to determine how much is proper for the U.S.

Quote

I think if we had a military merely three times as strong as any other on the planet, that would suffice to defend ourselves from any conceivable threat.

And what about helping to defend our allies?

If you restrict the budget like that, then when you do have to go to war, are you prepared to suffer vastly more casualties because of it?

Liberals are already screaming because there aren't enough armoured vehicles, bullet proof vests, and so on. And yet you want to cut the budget by 70%. Wow.

Thanks for supporting the troops.

I guess they can go back to mass wave bayonet charges like in WWI.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>So if they kill other nations, or groups of people within their own
>nations, then we should just stand aside, watch, and do nothing?

Like I said - when are you going to call for the US to defend Iran against the threat of Israel?

You didn't answer the question. Please try again.

Do you care about defending others from evil, or just America?

Israel threatens Iran, only because Iran has vowed to destroy Israel. Iran is the aggressor here. If they mind their own business, then Israel wouldn't be a concern to them.

But I expect the America-haters to ignore such distinctions.

[DZJ 0]

Quote

Quote

if they DON'T try to kill us we DON'T kill them, or invade them, or change their government, or support terrorists trying to kill them.

So if they kill other nations, or groups of people within their own nations, then we should just stand aside, watch, and do nothing?

Wonderful.

"In Germany, they first came for the communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.

Then, they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. 

Then they came for the Catholics.

I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak up."


- Reverend Martin Niemoller, German Lutheran pastor arrested

by the Gestapo, 1937, a decorated U-Boat skipper during WWI.

Oh, the irony. Remind us again when the US joined the war against Germany....

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

which is still less than 5% of the budget

Oh, well never mind then.

Wait! in other words, more than half a TRILLION dollars

-OR-

One dollar out of every 20 collected.


Pretty soon you're talking about real money!

you missed the point but that does not surprise me given you (implied) leanings

We all get your point, dude. It's liberal and you're against it.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

I,ve read that 41% of all taxes collected in the U.S are spent on the militarywww.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld

Which is 3x as much as spent on health and education combined. (Clicky added)

Not true. HHS and Social Security (i.e. entitlements) are more than double than what is spent on defense.

Here's a chart, and a link.

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!

[billvon 3,092]

>You should be better than to take things out of context to score cheap points . . .

That WAS my point. The rest of the world thinks that the US sees the world as "US" - always wearing the white hat - and a bunch of pissant "other" countries either too weak to defend themselves or bent on world domination. And they are not wrong - because there are a lot of people like you.

>If you restrict the budget like that, then when you do have to go to war,
>are you prepared to suffer vastly more casualties because of it?

We will suffer far fewer casualties if we avoid optional wars and spend our money defending our country from our enemies. Wars kill people, not budgets. Poorly planned optional wars kill even more.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I,ve read that 41% of all taxes collected in the U.S are spent on the militarywww.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld

Which is 3x as much as spent on health and education combined. (Clicky added)

So, less than 14% of the federal budget is spent on health and education? I thought it was closer to 27%, with another 10.79% for welfare and unemployment.

Funny thing. I always thought my unemployment benifits were paid by my employer. > "
State unemployment benefits are financed through state payroll taxes which are held in individual state trust fund accounts in the U.S. Treasury's Federal Unemployment Trust Fund. These funds are invested by the Secretary of the Treasury in government securities in the same manner as social security trust funds. Federal law prohibits the use of these funds for any purpose other than payment of unemployment benefits. Which w/ the exception of extended benifited paid by the Feds. (I think. Maybe they just authorize it) I haven's seen it since a certain party came into power at the time. Got a 12 week extension many moons ago when all the work ( const.) dried up for a couple yrs. Had something to do w/ some sort of trickle down thingy. Read THIS book>http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/279.html Very interesting read. Kinda shows how the federal govt. spins #'s and pulls the wool over all the sheeps eyes. And how stupid Ronny Reagan really was.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

what is the purpose in the USA spending 46% of the entire world's military expenditures? What has it achieved for us recently?

For one thing, we're paying for a lot of the defense costs for other nations, like Germany, Japan and South Korea. Do you want us to abandon those allies?

And elsewhere, our military power keeps tyrants at bay around the world, protecting numerous nations from the nefarious dreams of evil aggressors.

If America didn't have the military presence that it does around the world, then things would be far worse off than they are now. For no one else but us, has the power to make tyrants suppress their desire to overpower others.

But hey, I'm all for pulling all of our forces back to the U.S., and letting the rest of the world go to shit. What do I care.

Damn. I agree. Fuck em all. Nonna our beezwax. Tired of paying for all them bastards. We fund em (the big ones) and they all have state healthcare and such (and I know they are taxed heavily). What about the US healthcare and such? Oh. I forgot. It's all the big corps. and their lobbyists in Washinton playing w/ all the crooked bastards there and raping the world at the expense of the USA worker.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[SkyChimp 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The world's top 10 military spenders in 2006. The list shows the amount each country spent on weapons in 2005 dollars, and the share of world arms expenditures.
Rank/Nation/Amount spent/%

1. /U.S./$528.7 billion/46 percent
2./Britain/$59.2 billion/5 percent
3./France/$53.1 billion/5 percent
4./China/$49.5 billion/4 percent
5./Japan/$43.7 billion/4 percent
6. /Germany/$37.0 billion/3 percent
7./Russia/$34.7 billion/3 percent
8./Italy/$29.9 billion/3 percent
9./Saudi Arabia/$29.0 billion/3 percent
10./India/$23.9 billion/2 percent

Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

Last year the US spent $528.7 billion on weapons? No shit? But DOD total budget for 2006 was less than $420 billion. That includes operating and maintenance costs for the entire military. Housing, new construction, etc. Why the discrepancy?

Ask the WSJ.

online.wsj.com/article/SB118156485110131084.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Nice dodge, chief.

1. Practically no-one who posts here has 1st hand knowledge (as opposed to hearsay) of any topic discussed.

2. Anonymous posters have no credibilty on any topic anyway.

then why bother posting?

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[SkyChimp 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I,ve read that 41% of all taxes collected in the U.S are spent on the militarywww.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld

Which is 3x as much as spent on health and education combined. (Clicky added)

Not true. HHS and Social Security (i.e. entitlements) are more than double than what is spent on defense.

Here's a chart, and a link.

SMACK!!! LOL

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[akarunway 1]

Quote

>and much of that money you were talking of is going to research
>and development labs to ensure that the U.S. stays on the cutting edge . ..

Yep, I used to work in one such lab. The system wasted an unbelievable amount of money. I recall one program I was working on (the A-6F program) that was canceled but the company negotiated nine months of "spin down" funding. I had to show up every day and do a progress report every week, but I couldn't actually _do_ anything, because (of course) there was no work to do. And I couldn't work on anything else (like the E-2C project we were working on next) because that would be fraudulent billing.

Been there. Helped build a missile cooker for Martin Lockhead yrs. ago in the remote testing ground in Orlando, Fla. Was supposed to simulate missles going thru the upper atmosphere. They test fired it once and scrapped it. Shamu at Sea World got upset. Millions down the drain.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Like I said - when are you going to call for the US to defend Iran against the threat of Israel? Or are only certain groups of people "real" people worth defending?

well, shit, if it's already 3x too expensive just taking care of our friends, how much is it gonna cost to protect everyone?

Can't have it both ways.

[billvon 3,092]

>well, shit, if it's already 3x too expensive just taking care of our friends,
>how much is it gonna cost to protect everyone?

Too much. Which is why it's a mistake to try to defend everyone and to try to impose democracy on people who don't want it. That's as bad as any other form of tyranny when it's imposed on people without their consent.