World Military Budgets

[DurocShark]

US military spending is high because anything we do, we have to go half way around the world to do it. We can't just have an army, a few fighter planes, and maybe a frigate or two.

Besides, would you WANT a military like Frances? Or Sweeden's? Then then next time someone makes a Canada joke, they'll just reach down and b!tchslap us. :|

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
US military spending is high because anything we do, we have to go half way around the world to do it. We can't just have an army, a few fighter planes, and maybe a frigate or two.

Besides, would you WANT a military like Frances? Or Sweeden's? Then then next time someone makes a Canada joke, they'll just reach down and b!tchslap us. :|

More info on the French army.

Edit: Oh, and that CIA link reports only 10% of the people in China being under the poverty line, so actually less than the USA.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: tcsenter

then give it to the people who live below the povery mind, yes my math is fvcked. i'm trying to gdo too many things at once

Oh hey, about 12.1% of the US population lives below the poverty line. That would work-out to about $1142 per person. With that kind of booty to 'uplift' them, they can go out and buy...umm...a 12 year-old car in need of repair!

Consider how much better things are in a more Socialist-leaning country with a much more compassionate "public welfare safety net" like Great Britain, where only 22% of the population lives below the poverty line.

and in an even more socialist leaning country like France or Belgium only 4-7% of the population lives below the poverty line

from CIA world facts : France 6,4%

From the same source: USA 12,7%

Belgium: 4%

It seems to me that the UK (and the USA) needs more "socialism" to get the same result

The same results? Like these?

Gross Domestic Product:
USA $10.45 trillion
FRA $ 1.558 trillion
BEL $299.7 billion

GDP per capita:
USA $36,300
FRA $26,000
BEL $29,200

Unemployment:
USA 5.9%
FRA 9.1%
BEL 7.2%

God save us from socialism.

 

[gentobu]

Originally posted by: dighn
wow japan sure spends a lot on military

It's for NERV.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: shady06
would you fell less safer in say Sweden or Switzerland?

Those countries aren't as rich in resources as America. They also have much less strategic value. You could just go around either one.

Couldn't a country/coalition of countries invade the enitre world and go around America?

I guess if they wanted to. My point is that America is worth more than either of those countries as far as land and resources. I can't see America not being a "goal" of someone trying to establish large scale domination. America could stand on it's own for a while. I don't think Switzerland or Sweden would last too long shut off from the rest of the world.

Of course we won't stay out of anyone else's business, so I don't see that happening.

 

[Desslok]

I would have thought Isreal would have been higher up. Guess we give them a good customer discount.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: tcsenter

then give it to the people who live below the povery mind, yes my math is fvcked. i'm trying to gdo too many things at once

Oh hey, about 12.1% of the US population lives below the poverty line. That would work-out to about $1142 per person. With that kind of booty to 'uplift' them, they can go out and buy...umm...a 12 year-old car in need of repair!

Consider how much better things are in a more Socialist-leaning country with a much more compassionate "public welfare safety net" like Great Britain, where only 22% of the population lives below the poverty line.

and in an even more socialist leaning country like France or Belgium only 4-7% of the population lives below the poverty line

from CIA world facts : France 6,4%

From the same source: USA 12,7%

Belgium: 4%

It seems to me that the UK (and the USA) needs more "socialism" to get the same result

The same results? Like these?

Gross Domestic Product:
USA $10.45 trillion
FRA $ 1.558 trillion
BEL $299.7 billion

GDP per capita:
USA $36,300
FRA $26,000
BEL $29,200

Unemployment:
USA 5.9%
FRA 9.1%
BEL 7.2%

God save us from socialism.

I have no idea what you want to prove with this figures. I was just pointing out that modern "socialism"!= poverty

Gross Domestic Product:
USA $10.45 trillion
FRA $ 1.558 trillion
BEL $299.7 billion

comparing apples with oranges

USA = 280 million people
France = 60 million
Belgium=10 million


GDP per capita:
USA $36,300
FRA $26,000
BEL $29,200

and the fact remains that less people live in poverty in France and Belgium.
Conclusion 1: there is a big(ger) gap between rich and poor in the USA then in most modern West-European countries

Unemployment:
USA 5.9%
FRA 9.1%
BEL 7.2%

conclusion 2: lot's of Americans must have a low paid job. Lower unemployment in the USA but more poverty (see also conclusion 1)

 

[eakers]

typical americans.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: eakers
typical americans.

Hey it costs not only to defend our country but yours too!

 

[tcsenter]

and in an even more socialist leaning country like France only 6-7% of the population lives below the poverty line

US Poverty Rates released in September 2003 (citing US Census Bureau): 12.1%

Your data = from 2001 which is actually inconsistent with US Bureau of Census figures for that year (11.7%). Oops.

France's 6.4% poverty rate must be an unusually bright year for France, down from its 14% poverty rates in the late 80s and early 90s.

And it only costs France 2x as much of their GDP than the United States:

Social Security, outlays on public pensions, health insurance, income maintenance and other transfers as a percentage of GDP (1990)

France 23.5%
Sweden 21.2%
West Germany 19.3%
Italy 18.9%
United Kingdom 13.7%
Canada 12.8%
United States 11.5%
Japan 11.2%

France spends 2x as much of their GDP on 1/5th of the population that has historically grown at a fraction of the US population over the last century, continues to grow less than half the US rate, and yet still manages to have poverty rates which are nearly identical to the US before transfers and taxes. It is only after adjusting for effect of transfers and taxes where France makes a better showing than the US (Michael F. Forster, "Measurement of low Income and Poverty in a Perspective of International Comparisons," Occasional Paper No. 14. Paris: OECD, 1994.)

Meaning that with all of France's clear advantages (spends 2x the percentage of GDP, vastly smaller population, slower population growth, tough immigration and cultural assimilation policies), it isn't doing a damned thing to actually "reduce" poverty. France "lifts" people out of poverty range by writing larger government checks, that is all.

Socialist-leaning Canada and its "renowned social welfare safety net" is managing to keep poverty rates at an astonishingly low 16.4% in 1998, which was actually the lowest point in a decade, down from a super-low 17.9% of Canadians living in poverty just 2 years before (1996).

Thank goodness Canadians pay so much more in taxes, it appears to be doing wonders!

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

and in an even more socialist leaning country like France only 6-7% of the population lives below the poverty line

US Poverty Rates released in September 2003 (citing US Census Bureau): 12.1%

Your data = from 2001 which is actually inconsistent with US Bureau of Census figures for that year (11.7%). Oops.

France's 6.4% poverty rate must be an unusually bright year for France, down from its 14% poverty rates in the late 80s and early 90s.

And it only costs France 2x as much of their GDP than the United States:

Social Security, outlays on public pensions, health insurance, income maintenance and other transfers as a percentage of GDP (1990)

France 23.5%
Sweden 21.2%
West Germany 19.3%
Italy 18.9%
United Kingdom 13.7%
Canada 12.8%
United States 11.5%
Japan 11.2%

France spends 2x as much of their GDP on 1/5th of the population that has historically grown at a fraction of the US population over the last century, continues to grow less than half the US rate, and yet still manages to have poverty rates which are nearly identical to the US before transfers and taxes. It is only after adjusting for effect of transfers and taxes where France makes a better showing than the US (Michael F. Forster, "Measurement of low Income and Poverty in a Perspective of International Comparisons," Occasional Paper No. 14. Paris: OECD, 1994.)

Meaning that with all of France's clear advantages (spends 2x the percentage of GDP, vastly smaller population, slower population growth, tough immigration and cultural assimilation policies,), it isn't doing a damned thing to actually "reduce" poverty. France "lifts" people out of poverty range by writing larger government checks, that is all.

Socialist-leaning Canada and its "renowned social welfare safety net" is managing to keep poverty rates at an astonishingly low 16.4% in 1998, which was actually the lowest point in a decade, down from a super-low 17.9% of Canadians living in poverty just 2 years before (1996).

Thank goodness Canadians pay so much more in taxes, it appears to be doing wonders!

LOL

nice try to bs your way out of the discussion

what's next, statistics about Mozambique

I'm sure if you search hard enough you can find "socialist" countries with more poverty just like I can find "socialist" countries with less poverty


anyway, I just wanted to point out that "socialism" != poverty like you implied

 

[tcsenter]

nice try to bs your way out of the discussion

what's next, statistics about Mozambique

Note to self: when pinned down with nowhere to go, make some strange reference to "statistics about Mozambique."

anyway, I just wanted to point out that "socialism" != poverty like you implied

Actually, the European Welfare State has been cutting social welfare expenditures, imposing means tests, and limiting benefits for two decades. Europe has incrementally betrayed its Socialist principles in favor of free market capitalism.

IOW, Socialism =! poverty only because 'Socialist Europe' ain't so Socialist, anymore.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: shady06

Originally posted by: AnyMal
That's why we're the only Superpower in this world. Freedoms aren't free.

sounds like a commercial 😀

anyway, do u feel any safer living in US-"the superpower nation"?

would you fell less safer in say Sweden or Switzerland?

part of the reason for feeling safe in european countries is BECAUSE of the amount of money the US spends on Defense.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: shady06
just to think 10% cut will give everyone health insurance

Damn it. Once again I ask: why is the government's job to do everything?

I'm so sick of all these bed-wetting, liberal motherfvckers with their hand out.

According to the Constitution, providing defence is necessay, and providing for universal health care is not.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I am not particularly troubled by this number (hell, my salary comes out of it!), but I do wonder what the number would be if we ran DoD more efficiently. There is tremendous waste and overpayment for materiel, and I can't help but think we could be getting more bang for our buck.

 

[dxkj]

Is there a breakdown, per capita?

US it is ~ $1,425 dollars per person.


so if you add all of those up, the United States spends 48% of the worlds military budget. But we also have our nose in everyones business, and have a pretty large country....


Id be interested to see what japan is per capita...... Id be willing to be they are a bit more efficient than we are too..

 

[MercenaryForHire]

And the purpose of this thread is .... ?

- M4H

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito
I am not particularly troubled by this number (hell, my salary comes out of it!), but I do wonder what the number would be if we ran DoD more efficiently. There is tremendous waste and overpayment for materiel, and I can't help but think we could be getting more bang for our buck.

There will always be waste with any large bureaucracy. Particularly a military bureaucracy. Just keep chipping away at it, don't give up, but don't expect it to go away either.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: tcsenter

then give it to the people who live below the povery mind, yes my math is fvcked. i'm trying to gdo too many things at once

Oh hey, about 12.1% of the US population lives below the poverty line. That would work-out to about $1142 per person. With that kind of booty to 'uplift' them, they can go out and buy...umm...a 12 year-old car in need of repair!

Consider how much better things are in a more Socialist-leaning country with a much more compassionate "public welfare safety net" like Great Britain, where only 22% of the population lives below the poverty line.

and in an even more socialist leaning country like France or Belgium only 4-7% of the population lives below the poverty line

from CIA world facts : France 6,4%

From the same source: USA 12,7%

Belgium: 4%

It seems to me that the UK (and the USA) needs more "socialism" to get the same result

And we don't have 10,000 people dying from heat exposure because of the inability to afford afford a/c (France, last summer). Take a look to see who is in our poverty system. Last report I read over 90% had more than one color television. Poverty is too broad of a term now-a-days.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: shady06
just to think 10% cut will give everyone health insurance

Damn it. Once again I ask: why is the government's job to do everything?

I'm so sick of all these bed-wetting, liberal motherfvckers with their hand out.

According to the Constitution, providing defence is necessay, and providing for universal health care is not.

Finally, someone points out the only thing that matters.

 

[Kenazo]

Socialist-leaning Canada and its "renowned social welfare safety net" is managing to keep poverty rates at an astonishingly low 16.4% in 1998, which was actually the lowest point in a decade, down from a super-low 17.9% of Canadians living in poverty just 2 years before (1996).

Thank goodness Canadians pay so much more in taxes, it appears to be doing wonders!

our poverty is still quite a bit richer, and more comfortable than being under the poverty in other countries. I think in canada the poverty line is somewhere around $30,000/year, though you could technically live quite happily with that kind of $ here.

 

[FlashG]

Luxembourg 0.2

Whats that for? One can of Brasso spear cleaner and dry cleaning for 4 uniforms?

 

[Pastfinder]

Do realize that everytime an Air Force jet flies for ONE hour, it can cost thousands and thousands of dollars. I don't know the exact figure, but it costs over $10,000 an hour to fly the B-2 Spirit (stealth bomber). Take into consideration combat missions of over 40 hours, then factor in the cost of the bombs, the crew salaries, ect. and maybe then you realize how expensive things can be and why the military budget is so high.

 

[Cfour]

Originally posted by: Joeyman

Originally posted by: shady06

Originally posted by: tcsenter

just to think 10% cut will give everyone health insurance

$40 billion / 280 million = $143.00 per person, and you'll get exactly what you pay for, too. Try smoking something a little less harsh on the brain cells and try again.

its 400 billion genius, i think YOUR brain cells are damaged

dude dig any deeper and you'll hit mantel.

Haha.. shady got owned.

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: Pastfinder
Do realize that everytime an Air Force jet flies for ONE hour, it can cost thousands and thousands of dollars. I don't know the exact figure, but it costs over $10,000 an hour to fly the B-2 Spirit (stealth bomber). Take into consideration combat missions of over 40 hours, then factor in the cost of the bombs, the crew salaries, ect. and maybe then you realize how expensive things can be and why the military budget is so high.

Thus, I propose using a big wall to surround north america that is 30 miles high. Yes, the one time cost will be high, but after that, it's pure savings. 🙂