U.S Defense Budget

**BuBBeN** · 17th October 2002

This sickens me..saw today that this year you have the highest defense budget ever..355.1 billion dollars.
(bush even wanted and extra 10 billion just in case)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2336079.stm

355.1 billion dollars is the same as 3551 million dollars..and you are ~280 million people in america.

3551/280=12

That means if you FUCK your military/defense budget each and everyone of you in america could get 12 million dollars in your pocket.

ALL of you!

Now what makes more sense?..giving you the money or wasting them on blowing up big piles of sand in middle east?

Also if we not gonna be selfish that amount of money would be more than enough to stop world starvation and water problems and pollution and yeah just about EVERYTHING.

**BuBBeN** · 17th October 2002

but i just realized that i suck at math and its probably only 12 dollars each or sumthin lol

(1200 i think now)

Anyway that kinda money would be enough to solve all problems inside america with crimes and homeless people and shit.

So i still stick with my opinion that its sick..nevermind my math though

**eXistenZi** · 17th October 2002

theyd get about a grand each

[edit]yeah 1267 and some change

**Blade33** · 17th October 2002

Maybe you should represent your number in % of GNP? The US military budget represents around 3.2% of its GNP which is a bit over NATO average of ~2.5%.

Remember military is actually paying salaries of its soldiers, makes the economy rolling by investing in ammo production and research field.

**acidrock69** · 17th October 2002

hey bubben, wheres my 12 mil bitch?

now i KNOW why you'll never be pres.

anyways, looking at BBC links for a perspective is a start, but nowhere near the end all. you CANT just NOT have a defense budget for a year unless you plan on bring down the world economy like a string of dominos.

many programs are being cut to SAVE money. remember the Ospry? that one is in the can, so is this one fighter jet in particular because its so strong in combat that we have no enemies that are able to take it on, LOL.

anyways, theres billions of dollars spent on millions of stupid things... defense is far from the top of the 'cut list'

**Stritser** · 17th October 2002

Yeah yeah here we have Acidwar69 again, war solves anything and yeah its even good for the economy.

What Bubben says is true and I have evangelized this many times, if US did not spend 400 billion dollar on bombing countries it could easily solve world hunger. But thats not what the Bush government wants, they need and want enemies, without enemies they won't have a reason to attack and install their filthy shadow governments all over the globe.

US is silently conquering the world, you ever saw the movie Megiddo 2, just check it out and you will see the same scenario!!! Under the guise of a war on terror they are silently annexing countries under the evil Bush government!!!

**Blade33** · 17th October 2002

One offical world govt + ban religion + one official laguange = no more wars

**Stritser** · 17th October 2002

Let me add to that,

One world government with people that have no royal blood and are completely unrelated to Bush or any other US president, No religion and a ban on guns and destruction of all nuclear weapons = NO MORE WAR!!!

Religion was created to insure conflict!!

**acidrock69** · 17th October 2002

Originally posted by Stritser
Yeah yeah here we have Acidwar69 again, war solves anything and yeah its even good for the economy.

What Bubben says is true and I have evangelized this many times, if US did not spend 400 billion dollar on bombing countries it could easily solve world hunger. But thats not what the Bush government wants, they need and want enemies, without enemies they won't have a reason to attack and install their filthy shadow governments all over the globe.

US is silently conquering the world, you ever saw the movie Megiddo 2, just check it out and you will see the same scenario!!! Under the guise of a war on terror they are silently annexing countries under the evil Bush government!!!

1] when did i say war solves everything? dumb misquoting cock

2] $400 BILLION? AGAIN MISQUOTING. love how you throw around $45 Billion like its no thing.

3] how and when was it the US responsibility to fork over $355 Billion to solve world hunger

4] you watch too many movies. i saw transformers and where are those guys?

5] you want the NEW WORLD ORDER any you come here bitching about the US? you dumbfuck

what country you from?

**BuBBeN** · 17th October 2002

Originally posted by acidrock69
3] how and when was it the US responsibility to fork over $355 Billion to solve world hunger

it was never your responsibility and i fully agree because i am not one who thinks money should be given away to undeserving people if you need it yourself.

But if solving starvation in africa is a bad example then lets say you use it to solve your "domestic problems" in america..it could be used there too. (that amount would be enough for both)

The point is that there is 355.100.000.000 better things to put that money on than any stupid war or army.

You have to agree on that?

I mena how can you not get pissed when you see $1.000.000 of your tax money explode in 2 seconds in some desolate pile of sands and ruins in fuckin afghanistan when that million could be used for you..for your kids..whatever?

**secks** · 17th October 2002

For those of you who care about the facts:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/alli...b2001/C-6.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/alli...001/cs-us.html

http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/...factsfigs.html

According to the first two links, we're #9 in the world in defense spending to GDP percentage at 3%. Ahead of us lie Greece, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others.

For a country of such productivity, 3% amounts to a heap of cash. However, 75% of it is spent on modernization, not on fighting wars. In fact, much of the world's military technology is a direct result of U.S. research.

The third link ( Federal Spending as a % of GDP graph ) shows that our defense spending % has been declining since the Reagan era, when we spent 6%.

Nevertheless, I believe that 3% is too much for defense, even if most of it goes towards modernization. The culprit here is U.S. global presence. Eliminate the global presence, and you eliminate the need for so much defense spending.

What also ought to outrage Americans is non-defense spending, which is 15% of our GDP. Note that this figure is rapidly climbing.

Originally posted by Stritster
if US did not spend 400 billion dollar on bombing countries it could easily solve world hunger.

Since when did it become the America's responsibility to solve world hunger?

That point aside, before donating $400b to "solving" world hunger, the recipient nations would likely need to undergo an approved democratic regime change, to ensure that the funds would be spent properly. After all, its more than likely that the current leaders in impoverished nations are primarily responsible for their country's living conditions. This is not likely to happen, as world leaders would cry "imperialism", even if its for the sake of solving world hunger. Also, $400b isn't enough to force a regime change, temporarily support a standing army/police force, provide loans for infrastructure construction, etc. in every impoverished country.

Oh, and its really about $1268 per capita defense spending in the U.S., not $12.

**AngryKoala** · 17th October 2002

Originally posted by 2MuchC0ffeeMan

you had good logic the first time

... how'd you tack on 'million' to the end of the 12?

i have no problem spending $12 A YEAR for people to blow shit up.

It's actually 1200, not 12. Jesus man, how is it possible for you to ALWAYS be wrong!?

**PLtNmHeLiX** · 17th October 2002

wow this is a rarity, a isonews thread that's informative and contains a healthy discussion. i'm shocked.

O yea Strister so why does your country's government spend money on defense instead of helping to solve world hunger/domestic problems.

**Stritser** · 17th October 2002

We allready spend money on humanitarian aid, maybe one of the few countries in the world that actually goes to Africa to help set up houses and waterpumps!!!

And Acidcrack, where i get the fact that you fully support a war, well its splattered all over your insane Bush asskissing replies!!!

**Seadog** · 17th October 2002

You want to know how much of that money is wasted through incompetency and mismanagement? My guess is probably half. It "seems" like a lot, but it really isn't. So, that means you really only got about ~200 billion that you are really working with and using to the fullest extent. Now, there are about 1 million Service members in the Armed Forces. It costs around 50000 a year for each one to take care of them, working out to be 50 billion a year. Plus that and you have to buy and purchase all the equipment and maintain all of it, and lemme tell you something, new tanks are like 2 million each, so that gives you an idea how much the military wastes on equipment. So that cuts another 50% of the pie just taking care of the rusting broken down shit we already have, and then you have to buy technology from corporations that charge you up the ass for it, and then you have to integrate it, which is probably about 20-30% more, not even going into all the other new costs that crock up from that. And then you gotta pay for bases and all that shit. So in reality that "355.1 billion" isn't very much considering how much we spend and waste on a lot of stuff. So many people in the armed forces clamor for money and try to get contracts, it is unbelievable.

There really isn't that much money out there for our armed forces so stop complaining how much money is spent and look at it as a whole. If I told you I got 10000 bucks you would think that's a lot, but then if I told you I got it after working a whole year doing shitty work, you would say "that's shit money bro." Its all in perspective.

**Therusk Peeck** · 17th October 2002

355.1 billion = 355 100 million

**Harruin** · 18th October 2002

Originally posted by Seadog
You want to know how much of that money is wasted through incompetency and mismanagement? My guess is probably half.

Good job, you can guess. Show us a link.

**b00gada** · 18th October 2002

its cool how we spend more money on bombs than we do our schools

**Harruin** · 18th October 2002

Originally posted by b00gada
its cool how we spend more money on bombs than we do our schools

I don' know what public schools you go to, but the place district that runs my public schools are full of morons that are more concerned with teaching teachers how to make kids feel good about themselves than actually education.

**SteelStud** · 18th October 2002

Originally posted by secks
For those of you who care about the facts:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/alli...b2001/C-6.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/alli...001/cs-us.html

http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/...factsfigs.html

According to the first two links, we're #9 in the world in defense spending to GDP percentage at 3%. Ahead of us lie Greece, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others.

For a country of such productivity, 3% amounts to a heap of cash. However, 75% of it is spent on modernization, not on fighting wars. In fact, much of the world's military technology is a direct result of U.S. research.

The third link ( Federal Spending as a % of GDP graph ) shows that our defense spending % has been declining since the Reagan era, when we spent 6%.

Nevertheless, I believe that 3% is too much for defense, even if most of it goes towards modernization. The culprit here is U.S. global presence. Eliminate the global presence, and you eliminate the need for so much defense spending.

What also ought to outrage Americans is non-defense spending, which is 15% of our GDP. Note that this figure is rapidly climbing.

Since when did it become the America's responsibility to solve world hunger?

That point aside, before donating $400b to "solving" world hunger, the recipient nations would likely need to undergo an approved democratic regime change, to ensure that the funds would be spent properly. After all, its more than likely that the current leaders in impoverished nations are primarily responsible for their country's living conditions. This is not likely to happen, as world leaders would cry "imperialism", even if its for the sake of solving world hunger. Also, $400b isn't enough to force a regime change, temporarily support a standing army/police force, provide loans for infrastructure construction, etc. in every impoverished country.

Oh, and its really about $1268 per capita defense spending in the U.S., not $12.

Secks has the right idea, comparing the amount spent to GDP. I'm no expert but I don't believe that 3% is too much. The cuts in expenses need to come from items in the budget that are not clearly defined in the Constitution. If we quit spending money on "unconstitutional" expenditures and concentrated more on a strong military and secure borders and a much more limited government we wouldn't have to be the police of the world.

The ironic part of the whole GDP compared to the Federal budget is that the Democrats, specifically Clinton, spent a much smaller percentage on the budget than has Bush. Bush has a larger budget to GDP ratio than any president in the 20th century with the exception of FDR and Clinton had a smaller budget to GDP ratio than any president in the 20th century with the exception of Reagan. The Republicans bashed Clinton for eight years for being a tax and spend liberal then they get control of the White House and Congress and out tax and spend every administration since the 1940's.

Back to the point, I have no problem with the military budget but I do with the bloated social budget.