World military spending in 2009 = $1.53 trillion. USA share = 43%

[endsongs]

Quote from Mav88:

Oh, NOW you shift the argument to mandatory versus discretionary whereas before you used 'funded versus unfunded'.

Mandatory is just what was put into law on a continuing basis, there is nothing stopping congress from changing it. Civil servant pensions are mandatory, but they will have to be cut, nothing special about the word mandatory except for interest on the debt.

You single out the military to take a 40% cut during wartime while ignoring stimulus, bailouts, etc. All this is your anti-military agenda- nothing else.




news bulletin 1: we are at war
news bulletin 2: there is widespread fraud waste and abuse in medicare, medicaid, and almost all gov't programs
news bulletin 3: there is a hell of a lot more to the rest of the non military budget outside SSI and medicare.

Do you know why the income tax was started in the US? To pay for war. The current income taxes are more than adequate to pay for the military, the DoD is funded. The income tax was never intended to pay for medicaid, HHS, HUD, Ag, bailouts, etc.

The argument can be made that the militray also then has run a surplus because the original purpose of income taxes was to fight wars.





I actually agree partially, these assinine rules are the product of trying to appease anti-american and anti-military folks. However you still do not understand the military budget. The vast majority of it is overhead, going back to 2000 levels for the RDT&E and acquisitions budget would only save about $40B. That peanuts for a big stepper like Obama. All the rest of the increases are mainly about homeland security and war fighting costs.



You are right about your deficit comment, I apologize. the fact that you won't mention things like medicaid is exactly my point, you are anti-military and don't care what everything else is costing. That's really all that needs to be said.

You are right in that cutting military spending by 300B and the rest of gov't spending by 700B in wartime is a bit extreme. I'll change that to cut military by 180B and the rest of govt by 820B during war. Once we win the wars, cut military spending by 350B and the rest of govt by 650B.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Petsamo:

I don't recall reading a history book authored by Winston Churchill.

While you may not have read any, you should have. Churchill was one of the most productive writers among 20th Century Historians and biographers. He wrote books on other subjects as well, but he was mainly an historian.

 

[Random.Capital]

Quote from 700express:

Do you dispute the fact that military spending should rise during wartime?

The USA is not at war.

 

[Random.Capital]

Quote from Petsamo:

I don't recall reading a history book authored by Winston Churchill.

Shame on you, then.

He was a Nobel-winning historian.

 

[bone]

Well, we are in 43% of the armed conflict.

Besides, makes for great cable programming. The cornerstone for American military strategy since 1942 has been firepower. Making big boob-boom ain't cheap.

 

[the1]

Ummm....were you not paying attention to what Hitler was trying to do?

Quote from pspr:

We should quit defending the world unless they chip in their fair share. Let Europe fall to the Russians or the Iranians. Let Japan and S. Korea defend themselves. We can't afford to keep protecting them for nothing.

These countries enter into military alliances with the U.S. then just keep token armies assured that the U.S. will come protect them. We need to stop this nonsense.

 

[700express]

Quote from Random.Capital:

The USA is not at war.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha


"i declare a war on terror........."


sorry its not written down on a congressional sheet of paper that officially labels it war- if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then its a fucking duck for all intents and purposes.

 

[Random.Capital]

Quote from 700express:

if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Except the current situation doesn't do any of those things. The USA is not a country at war, it is a country at peace whose means of production have been mobilized, not for building tanks, but for shopping.

The USA may have a few soldiers overseas, but it is most definitely not a nation at war. Certainly not by any meaning that includes the Civil War and World War 2 as examples.

 

[NJ1000]

ID like to think the US has a little idea of what it is doing.. Either way the next few years should be interesting with all the bullshit prophecys, predictions and so on.. Truth is we are all gonna die quicker then we think, people tend to plan like there gonna live forever and get to depressed or excited based on that... The fact is no matter how rich or poor u are everyone ends up in the same place, my advice is just try and be a good person and what happens happens there really isnt much u can control..

 

[700express]

Quote from Random.Capital:

Except the current situation doesn't do any of those things. The USA is not a country at war, it is a country at peace whose means of production have been mobilized, not for building tanks, but for shopping.

The USA may have a few soldiers overseas, but it is most definitely not a nation at war. Certainly not by any meaning that includes the Civil War and World War 2 as examples.

Drawing upon one of the, if not the, largest war this world has ever seen and using that as the new baseline for war is somewhat silly. Just because it isn't war on an absolutely massive scale doesn't mean we aren't at war. I feel like the military would disagree with you.