What is a better US Gov investment for Future - Military Spending or Infrastructure

.

April 6, 2007

SouthAmerica: I started this thread on August 2005 about a report by “ASCE” regarding the infrastructure of the United States.

Yesterday, The New York Times published a column by Bob Herbert “Our Crumbling Foundation” – and his article covered pretty much what I have been mentioning on this Forum since August of 2005, and before that I had been mentioning the same information on the PBS message board since March of 2005.

In a Nutshell: the infrastructure of the United States has been deteriorating on a consistent basis since the Bush administration took office in 2001 – but I understand why the US government is not even trying to fix the US massive infrastructure problems – Americans have better things to do with their borrowed money such as fighting a losing war in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

The entire world knows that the United States has lost the war in Iraq – only foolish Americans think that they have even a 1 percent chance of winning that war – as if you could win a war with pure BS or a PR job.


.
 
.

April 7, 2007

SouthAmerica: During the 8 years of the Bush administration if they had continued the same trend on defense spending of the Clinton administration then instead of spending US$ 4 trillion on defense they would have spent instead around US$ 2.2 trillion dollars.

The difference, the US$ 1.8 trillion dollars, it could have been spent to fix the infrastructure around the United States – and today the US infrastructure would be in much better shape, and would have created hundred of thousands of jobs inside the United States.



**********


From Elite Trader Forum thread:

United States Government Budget - Interesting Analysis.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=87312&perpage=6&pagenumber=5


February 20, 2007

SouthAmerica:

United States government actual budget

United States Government Annual Budget during the Bush administration.
Each year, on the first Monday in February, the President of the United States submits his budget request to Congress for the following fiscal year:

United States federal budget, 2008 - $2.9 trillion (submitted February 2007 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2007 - $2.8 trillion (submitted February 2006 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2006 - $2.6 trillion (submitted February 2005 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2005 - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2004 - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2003 - $2.1 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2002 - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total US government Budget for period year 2001 to year 2007 = US$ 17 trillion.

We can estimate that the US government budget for the last year of the Bush administration it will be at least US$ 3 trillion dollars – a figure that will bring the total US government budget for the 8-year period of the Bush administration to US$ 20 trillion dollars.


**************


Here is Bushes’ military spending - this does not include ANY costs related to Afghanistan or Iraq as they are all in supplemental spending bills:

For Fiscal Year 2007 it is $470.0 billion
For Fiscal Year 2006 it was $441.6 billion
For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion
For Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion
For Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2001 it was $ 296.0 billion

Iraq and Afghanistan supplementary spending including 2007 = over $ 500 billion.

--------------------------------------------------------

Total Bush administration actual defense spending for 7-year period 2001 to 2007 = US$ 3,266.7 billion


For Fiscal year 2008 we can very conservatively estimate that Defense Spending will be at least another US$ 500 billion.

Including this estimate for defense spending for 2008 that would bring the total defense spending for the 8-year period of the Bush administration to the amount of US$ 3,766.7 billion. Plus the supplementary amounts that the government it is going to request the total adjusted amount for defense spending for the 8-years of the Bush administration it can reach the US$ 4 trillion dollar level.


.
 
.

June 12, 2007

SouthAmerica: Military expenditures around the world in 2006 - reached US$ 1.2 trillion.

The United States invested US$ 529 billion in armaments in 2006 - which included an increase of US$ 24 billion from the prior year.

The report also said that China is ranked number 4 - with military expenditure of US$ 50 billion.

Based on the news from CNN in the last few months – the United States is getting very nervous regarding the level of China’s military expenditure.

If this trend continues Americans have a justified reason to be afraid of the Chinese since in the next ten years the United States will expend only US$ 5.5 trillion dollars in military expenditures compared with US$ 500 billion by the Chinese for the same period.



*********



Gastos militares no mundo chegaram a US$ 1,2 trilhão em 2006
Associated Press - 11/06/2007

Os Estados Unidos investiram US$ 529 bilhões em armas em 2006, mantendo a primeira posição no ranking dos países com maiores gastos militares em um relatório anual divulgado nesta segunda-feira. O relatório, elaborado pelo Instituto de Pesquisa em Paz Internacional Estocolmo (Sipri, na sigla em inglês), mostra que os gastos militares globais no último ano alcançou US$ 1,2 trilhões, um aumento de 3,5% com relação ao ano anterior.

Uma das novidades do relatório divulgado hoje é que a China ultrapassou o Japão como o maior investidor em armas na Ásia, chegando à quarta posição no ranking com gastos de US$ 50 bilhões. O Reino Unido e a França foram o segundo e terceiro colocados, respectivamente, e o Japão ficou com a quinta posição, com US$ 43,7 bilhões em gastos.

Nos EUA, 2006 representou um aumento de US$ 24 bilhões em gastos militares. "O grande aumento em gastos militares nos EUA se deve em grande medida às operações no Afeganistão e no Iraque", informou o relatório.

"Devemos nos perguntar o quão eficiente são os gastos militares como uma forma de aumentar a segurança de vidas humanas", afirma a pesquisadora do Sipri Elisabeth Skons.

"Milhões de vidas poderiam ser salvas por meio de intervenções de saúde básicas, que custariam apenas uma fração do que o mundo gasta em forças militares a cada ano".

Venda de armas

As transferências de armas internacionais crescem continuamente desde 2002, informa o Sipri. A China e a Índia são os maiores importadores de armas, e os EUA e a Rússia os maiores exportadores, segundo o instituto.

A Rússia, que segundo o Sipri gastou US$ 34,7 bilhões em armas em 2006, "usou sua energia e dinheiro para reavivar o orgulho nacional, restaurara sua influência em países vizinhos e maximizar seu poder geopolítico", diz o relatório.

Cinco países do Oriente Médio estavam entre os dez maiores importadores de armas. E o relatório surpreende:

"Enquanto a atenção da mídia se volta para compra de armas pelo Irã, especialmente da Rússia, as vendas dos EUA para Israel, Arábia Saudita e Emirados Árabes Unidos são muito maiores", afirma.

Segundo o Sipri, EUA, Rússia, França, Reino Unido e China, juntos, possuíam mais de 26 mil artefatos nucleares no começo de 2007. "Apesar de o número de artefatos nucleares estar diminuindo gradualmente, todos os cinco países já têm ou planejam grandes programas para atualizar seus arsenais", alertou o grupo.

O relatório informa que o governo americano reservou um total de US$ 432 bilhões para a guerra contra o terrorismo entre setembro de 2001 e junho de 2006.

"O grande aumento de gastos militares dos EUA foi um dos fatores que contribuiu para a deterioração da economia americana a partir de 2001", diz o Sipri.

O grupo, que é largamente financiado pelo governo suíço, é um dos líderes mundiais em acompanhamento da venda de armas no mundo e análise de gastos militares.



********


Source: http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_database1.html


.
 
.

August 2, 2007

SouthAmerica: Am I surprised by yesterday’s bridge collapse in Minneapolis?

No. I am not.

But I am surprised that is not happening more often all around the country – major disasters - when we take in consideration the state of disrepair of the infrastructure around the USA.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that today Americans in general are a very complacent bunch and they are not proactive – today they just react when it is too late and you have a crisis – Americans just react to the latest crisis.

The mentality here in the "USA" today is milk the system for all you can get and screw the future.

The sad part is that Americans don’t learn their lessons from prior experiences, and as soon as the crisis settle down a little then they go back to business as usual.

You can bet on that.

Today Americans are becoming known more for exporting death around the world when the military hardware that they give or sell to other countries are used against defenseless countries and we watch the results on television when countries are being pulverized such as Lebanon with bombs saying “Made in USA”.

Never mind Iraq and Afghanistan – two lost causes that the price tag so far has reached US$ 600 billion as the down payment – and future yearly payments probably will add to US$ 1 to US$ 2 trillion dollars.

When I think about what has been happening for many years to the US infrastructure system what comes to mind is what happened in Zaire during the years that Mobutu was in power – 32 years from 1965 to 1997.

By the time Mobutu died the infrastructure of the entire country had died with him – Mobutu left behind a country in ruins.

That country used to be called Belgian Congo from 1908 to 1960 – then Congo from 1960 to 1965 – then Zaire from 1965 to 1996 – then Democratic Republic of Congo.


.
 
Quote from mschey:




As for South America, nothing new in your post....looks to me like econ 101 stuff here....the old guns and butter argument.
More...

SA is still posting?? Yes it definitely is the same old stuff with him, he's a legend in his own mind you know.

I say neither, no infrastructure, no military spending. We can reinvent the infrastructure and convince the world we need peace over the internet. I'll be selling green houses and plans for same, somebody else can sell battery operated solar recharged 3 wheel bicycles.. it will work itself out.
 
.

Maxpi: I say neither, no infrastructure, no military spending. We can reinvent the infrastructure and convince the world we need peace over the internet.


******


August 3, 2007

SouthAmerica: Maxpi you just have brilliant ideas.

You list on your bio that you live on the Mojave Desert.

After exposing yourself to too much sun on the desert, that probably resulted in over cooking all your brain cells. Like that commercial that they had on television years ago against illegal drug use - they used to show a fried egg to represent your brain after you had been using illegal drugs on a regular basis.

I guess you expect that 300 million Americans will be able to live in the US without water and electric power on their houses – no highways, bridges, and so on for people to move around, never mind to move around the food supply.

You actually expect that the United States will be able to go back 300 years on its economic development, the only thing that I don’t understand is how on your dream world you still expect to be able to use the internet.

Maxpi, you have been watching too many cavemen commercials on television. I assume that you also love the “Flintstones” and you wish you could live in a the town of Bedrock

I am sorry to disappoint you but the Flintstones it is just an animated TV show for kids showing the daily prehistoric lives of characters such as Fred, Wilma, Barney and the rest of the gang.

By the way, Dino the pet dinosaur is not real – it is just a make believe pet..


.
 
"From 1780 to the early 1900's everybody else on planet earth was going our way, is a broken bridge and some human sacrifices that we really could be an example again?" ....

From this morning's address from Paul Harvey. He talks about the days when the U.S. was a true leader, without sending troops, guns, butter, aid of any kind, to the rest of the world. Could we ever get back to that type of thinking?


Sure, we have to defend ourselves and our allies in this global society, I can deal with that.....but you might find this interesting.

www.paulharvey.com Click on Paul Harvey's flash player, play Friday morning.



c
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top