Why is the US military budget like 350 billion dollars ?

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: morkinva
Thats billion with a b - each year. This is where your tax dollars are going. An amount of money that is really quite incomprehensible. It dwarfs amounts spent on welfare, education and healthcare. We could eradicate poverty in this country. We could do so much more -- how stupid of us.

Did you not notice the ass-kicking we delivered in response to 3,000 of our civilians being killed?

We would be truly stupid if we were unwilling, or unable, to defend ourselves.

Pull your head out & see the real world, that money is well spent.

Viper GTS

Wow, wasn't that great!! Oh wait, who did we kick in the ass?? How many civilians were killed?? Is Osama bin Laden in custody somewhere?? Afghanistan is such a peaceful place now!!!
I'm sure glad those $350 billion are being used well so we can show the world what an alpha male we are by making Saddam and the people of Iraq our bitch.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
I think the point that most are missing here is that defense is by far the largest government expenditure. Yes, social security may have a larger number in the budget, but keep in mind that for every social security dollar spent, there is, in theory, a social security dollar taxed to cover that expenditure. I think some people are misleading when they say defense isn't the largest government expense.

How do you make the defense budget larger than it is, without making it larger?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: morkinva
Thats billion with a b - each year. This is where your tax dollars are going. An amount of money that is really quite incomprehensible. It dwarfs amounts spent on welfare, education and healthcare. We could eradicate poverty in this country. We could do so much more -- how stupid of us.

Did you not notice the ass-kicking we delivered in response to 3,000 of our civilians being killed?

We would be truly stupid if we were unwilling, or unable, to defend ourselves.

Pull your head out & see the real world, that money is well spent.

Viper GTS

Wow, wasn't that great!! Oh wait, who did we kick in the ass?? How many civilians were killed?? Is Osama bin Laden in custody somewhere?? Afghanistan is such a peaceful place now!!!
I'm sure glad those $350 billion are being used well so we can show the world what an alpha male we are by making Saddam and the people of Iraq our bitch.

Reports have less than 1000 civilians killed and every innocent death is unfortunate.
You really expect afganistan to have a stable goverment in 6 months after having 20 years of civil war?

If Sadamm complies with inspection and disarmorment resolutions, there is no need to go in. But guess what he is not going to comply.

 

[JellyBaby]

Well Blair is releasing/presenting the Secret Dossier of evidence on Saddum tomorrow so perhaps someone will finally make an adequate case for Western invasion of Iraq.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
I think the point that most are missing here is that defense is by far the largest government expenditure. Yes, social security may have a larger number in the budget, but keep in mind that for every social security dollar spent, there is, in theory, a social security dollar taxed to cover that expenditure. I think some people are misleading when they say defense isn't the largest government expense.

OK the federal buget is 2 trillion and the defence buget is 360 billion.
it is only 18 % and the defence buget is taxed at a higher rate then the social spending programs.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Well Blair is releasing/presenting the Secret Dossier of evidence on Saddum tomorrow so perhaps someone will finally make an adequate case for Western invasion of Iraq.

We don't need blair to show us that he has lied to the UN for 12 years, If you don't see that then you are blind or stupid.

 

[Angrymarshmello]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: morkinva
Thats billion with a b - each year. This is where your tax dollars are going. An amount of money that is really quite incomprehensible. It dwarfs amounts spent on welfare, education and healthcare. We could eradicate poverty in this country. We could do so much more -- how stupid of us.

Did you not notice the ass-kicking we delivered in response to 3,000 of our civilians being killed?

We would be truly stupid if we were unwilling, or unable, to defend ourselves.

Pull your head out & see the real world, that money is well spent.

Viper GTS

Wow, wasn't that great!! Oh wait, who did we kick in the ass?? How many civilians were killed?? Is Osama bin Laden in custody somewhere?? Afghanistan is such a peaceful place now!!!
I'm sure glad those $350 billion are being used well so we can show the world what an alpha male we are by making Saddam and the people of Iraq our bitch.

So you want us to just bend over and let terrorists fvck us right up the @$$? We'd be a joke without the best military in the world. They're out there fighting to keep your @$$ free - stop complaining about what a waste of money it is. I'm sure you'd have plenty to bitch about when some suicide bomber blows up your wife and kids because we spent that extra billion on the war against drugs or some lame $hit like that

 

[BurnItDwn]

Didn't we learn from WW2 that not having a strong and up to date defense is bad. in WW2 Russia had crappy technology and a low military budget. They lost many millions of people because they were fighting against tanks with riflemen. Anybody remember Enemy at the Gates? Having a massive amount of funding for our countries defense is absolutely necessary. Without a strong defense, we would be helpless against foreign threats.

 

[HendrixFan]

Alot of the military budget is just pork. Since the fall of the Soviet Union (over 10 years), we have spent more on military than ALL of the other countries in the world, combined. While there is a valid claim that military spending is constitutional, there certainly is a question of what is reasonable or necessary, and we seemed to have overstepped that boundary.

 

[glenn1]

Since the fall of the Soviet Union (over 10 years), we have spent more on military than ALL of the other countries in the world, combined. While there is a valid claim that military spending is constitutional, there certainly is a question of what is reasonable or necessary, and we seemed to have overstepped that boundary.

You all keep on making the same mistake. You're looking at the size of the spending number in absolute terms rather than proportional terms. OF COURSE our military spending is going to be higher in absolute dollar terms than everyone else's, the only thing is our GDP is even higher still in relative terms. In other words, we spend more on EVERYTHING than everyone else, from welfare to healthcare to education, and yes, even defense.

The leftists out there would have a fit if i complained that we spend more than the rest of the world combined on healthcare and social security, so how come it's okay for you to do that when it comes to defense spending?

 

[HendrixFan]

Well our GDP isnt greater than that of the rest of the world combined, which means we spend a greater percentage of our GDP on national defense than the rest of the world. Or if you want to break it down per capita, or perhaps by sheer acreage we would still outpace everyone by far. I can understand what you mean about gross numbers, but I mentioned that to illustrate my point. Since we spend a greater percentage of our GDP on military than the rest of the world combined, we are putting a much higher priority on military than anyone else. This is compounded by the fact that we have been doing this for a long time, and the marginal returns each year of having a greater military expense should add up to quite a bit, right?

 

[Ornery]

Has anyone mentioned that a lot of those dollars are spent for research, which keeps us ahead in technology? The money is also funneled back into our own economy via Boeing, Mcdonnell Douglas and hundreds of other huge, high tech employers throughout the country. It really doesn't bother me a bit!

 

[HendrixFan]

Alot of it goes to technology, alot goes to payroll for all the fine enlisted men and women. Of course, any government spending goes back into the economy, really any spending in general. We are certainly well ahead of everyone else as far as technology goes, and we can still continue to be that way with spending cuts in the military.

 

[Ornery]

I'm just saying, it's better that those billions are funneled through high tech industries instead of state lotteries, RJ.Reynolds or Anheuser Busch, which is where most of the welfare dollars end up!

 

[B00ne]

World subjugation isnt for free

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: B00ne
World subjugation isnt for free

You guys should listen to him. If anyone knows about the cost of trying to rule the world it would be a German.

Now really.....all you people complaining about what we spend on the military need to STFU! You know why we spend that kind of $? Because we have to. Whenever something goes wrong in the world who does everyone come crying to begging to help them out? That's right, the U.S.A. Remember that whole conflict in the former Yugoslavia? Who had to go in and straighten it out for the Europeans right in their own back yard? You guessed it, the U.S.A. Most of Europe sits back in their coffee shops talking about how wonderful it is to live in a socialist utopia where they are happy to pay 75% of their income in taxes and have all these wondrous programs that have almost totally removed the need to do anything for yourself or even think. At the same time they love to look down their noses at the U.S. and talk about how war mongering, hate filled, lacking in culture, etc, etc, etc.. we are. Let something happen that threatens them and what do they do? Let me do an impression for you to answer that question; "Oh Uncle Sam, please intervene on our behalf so that we don't have to get our hands all dirty." So of course we roll in and take care of the problem. After that it's right back to the same old "Americans just love war, they think they are all John Wayne." tripe that they just love to spew about us. You know what though? I would much rather be John Wayne than some sniveling Frenchman that thinks Jerry Lewis is a comedy god.

As for getting rid of poverty in this country? Ever heard of The New Deal or The Great Society? Yeah those really worked...... We will never be rid of poverty in this country, even though we don't have real poverty here, until all the lazy ass SOB's get up and work for a living. This country was not founded on the notion that, to borrow a line from Star Trek, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. No, it was founded on the notion of hard work and earning what you have. Back then if you were able to work and you didn't work you starved, too bad it's not like that now.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: B00ne
World subjugation isnt for free

Na Klar.

US Streitkräfte in Deutschland = Zwei Prozent die Deutschen Bruttoinlandsprodukt.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: morkinva
Thats billion with a b - each year. This is where your tax dollars are going. An amount of money that is really quite incomprehensible. It dwarfs amounts spent on welfare, education and healthcare. We could eradicate poverty in this country. We could do so much more -- how stupid of us.

Did you not notice the ass-kicking we delivered in response to 3,000 of our civilians being killed?

We would be truly stupid if we were unwilling, or unable, to defend ourselves.

Pull your head out & see the real world, that money is well spent.

Viper GTS

Wow, wasn't that great!! Oh wait, who did we kick in the ass?? How many civilians were killed?? Is Osama bin Laden in custody somewhere?? Afghanistan is such a peaceful place now!!!
I'm sure glad those $350 billion are being used well so we can show the world what an alpha male we are by making Saddam and the people of Iraq our bitch.

So you want us to just bend over and let terrorists fvck us right up the @$$? We'd be a joke without the best military in the world. They're out there fighting to keep your @$$ free - stop complaining about what a waste of money it is. I'm sure you'd have plenty to bitch about when some suicide bomber blows up your wife and kids because we spent that extra billion on the war against drugs or some lame $hit like that

What is a giant military going to do against a terrorist threat?? What are B2 bombers going to do about the suicide bombers you're talking about??
The "obvious" answer is to use our incredible military at terrorisms sources'. Like Iraq.......oh wait. Iraq is not a big producer of terrorism. Its on the list of 38 or so countries that have an al queda cell, so what are we going to do, take over all of those countries?? Like the US?? Lets bomb ourselves with our high tech weapons to get rid of the terrorists living here in America.
The newest generation of stealth jet fighters and subs will not help us with such a disperse and viscous enemy. We could still cut our defense budget in half and still have
more than double the military budget of the next highest military spender. Plus, "In 1999, the most recent year for which data is available, the United States spent almost three times as much as the combined expenditures of Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Serbia, Cuba, and the Sudan - the states most often considered as potential adversaries." ( link) Is this really needed??

 

[JellyBaby]

jahawkin, that's the exact point the thick-headed can't seem to understand. Bush is throwing a ton of money at the military, a $300+ billion dollar budget that failed to protect us against 9/11 btw, and most of it is going to fight a non-existant Cold War with the non-existant Soviet Union.

It's been estimated a yearly budget of between $50-$100 billion would be enough, if only the feds would pull their heads out from the assess of the numerous countries they're stuck in. I'm not terribly impressed with how this administration is going on a spending spree to create more useless war tools and more bureacracy when the tools don't fit the job and bureacracy led to the intelligence failure in the first place.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Vortex
Sure, we could erradicate poverty in the country. But how would we defend ourselves? Some other country sees us with no millitary and were done with.

You know, this simplistic socialist nonsense really cracks me up... and makes me sad. (not you, Vortex, just the idea that giving away money will end poverty)

Even if you evenly distributed all the world's wealth among all 6 billion people, the distribution would soon look very much like it does today within one or two generations... probably faster.

All one has to do is look at the majority of lottery winners who are broke within ten years to figure this out.

The lesson: You cannot end poverty by giving people money. Give away programs simply perpetuate poverty, not stop it. The US welfare system is a perfect example.

 

[HendrixFan]

You are right Amused. During the previous administration, both Republicans and Democrats worked together on welfare reform. They began to push for programs to help people get off welfare and get to work, and as a result the welfare rolls are now the lowest (as of 2000, I dont know whats happened since) since the LBJ administration 35 years ago.

Throwing money at people doesnt solve the problem, you have to get to the root of the problem, and help from there. And as you also alluded to, there is the simple truth that there are gonna be different social classes in any region and across the globe.

 

[Lucky]

Is this really needed??

it wouldnt be needed if pansy asses like the EU would pull their fair share instead of relying on the US to do everything.

 

[shiner]

Is this really needed??

Yes, unless you want us to get caught with our pants down again like we did when WWII started. It takes money, lots of money to stay as the world's premier military power. Sorry if you don't like that but it's a fact. We have to spend $ on equipment, maintaining that equipment, training, R&D, etc, etc, etc.... if you will look at the military budget you might also be shocked to see how much goes to pay for "humanitarian missions." Back during the Clinton Presidency there were several times that the military had to forgo buying new supplies or fixing equipment just so they could fund one of Clinton's "humanitarian" missions. I can have my cousin in the USMC write you if you would like and he can tell you how bad it was when he first went on active duty. How he was in command 15 tanks but only 4 ran at any one time due to lack of parts, how they had to scavenge to keep their equipment running, and how they had to make do with a shortage of damn near everything. Then he can tell you about how it has been since Bush became President and how he now has all his tanks running, or how he doesn't have to beg borrow or steal to keep his men supplied. Would $100 million a year be enough? Probably if we didn't need to maintain what we now have or ever develop any new weapon systems. Protecting your, mine, and everyone's freedom isn't cheap. Never has been, never will be.

 

[HendrixFan]

The cost of stationing troops in another country isnt as enormous as the costs of providing food and in some cases cash. In fact, for alot of Clinton's humanitarian efforts, he successfully lobbied Congress to appropriate funding to specifically cover those missions, so the money would come out of "national defense", as well it shouldnt because that is a cost of international relations and ultimately our own economic agenda. Whatever anecdote your cousin could provide wouldnt quite support your statement that money was being funneled out of defense funds en masse.

National defense does cost money, but the amount we appropriate is too large. You have to admit that there is alot of pork in defense spending, as is the case with most any government expenditure. Aside from pork, I think you would have a hard time explaining why we arent effecient enough to be able to spend as much as the rest of the world combined, and instead just throw money at the problem as someone else was talking about welfare a minute ago.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Is this really needed??

Yes, unless you want us to get caught with our pants down again like we did when WWII started. It takes money, lots of money to stay as the world's premier military power. Sorry if you don't like that but it's a fact. We have to spend $ on equipment, maintaining that equipment, training, R&D, etc, etc, etc.... if you will look at the military budget you might also be shocked to see how much goes to pay for "humanitarian missions." Back during the Clinton Presidency there were several times that the military had to forgo buying new supplies or fixing equipment just so they could fund one of Clinton's "humanitarian" missions. I can have my cousin in the USMC write you if you would like and he can tell you how bad it was when he first went on active duty. How he was in command 15 tanks but only 4 ran at any one time due to lack of parts, how they had to scavenge to keep their equipment running, and how they had to make do with a shortage of damn near everything. Then he can tell you about how it has been since Bush became President and how he now has all his tanks running, or how he doesn't have to beg borrow or steal to keep his men supplied. Would $100 million a year be enough? Probably if we didn't need to maintain what we now have or ever develop any new weapon systems. Protecting your, mine, and everyone's freedom isn't cheap. Never has been, never will be.

The US military was so unprepared for WWII (and WWI, for that matter), that it's a wonder that we won the war in some respects. Take the tank, for example. When the US first entered combat in North Africa, the tanks we had didn't even have their main guns mounted in a movable turret. When the Sherman tank was introduced, our troops thought it was wonderful, and they were told it was equal or better than anything German in the field. That is, until they were cut to ribbons; the German Tiger had far better armor and a far superior main gun. In fact, shells from the Sherman would bounce off the German tanks when by contrast shells from the Germans would, in the words of members of Sherman tank crews (courtesy of the History Channel), go through the Sherman like a knife through hot butter. The only reason we won was because we had the ability to build and ship some 50,000 of those things...

As a result of that experience, more emphasis was placed on the value of the tank crews, and tanks got a lot more complex, and a lot more lethal (to the enemy, as Desert Storm showed the world). Weapons systems like the M1-A1 Abrahms do not come cheaply, but they work very well.