Military Budget ----- RIDICULOUS!

[No Free Beer]

You can show this to all the chickenhawks out there and ask them if this is necessary.

http://www.iiss.org/publications/mil...ess-statement/

Example:



There are more in the link above.

[The Binghamton Patriot]

did u make these your self....

[IDefendThePlatform]

Ugh. I can think of about a million other more productive uses for all that money. What a waste.

[No Free Beer]

It's out of control. And we are looking to make increases...

FOR WHAT!?

[No Free Beer]

bump

[Hyperion]

I often hear the claim that military spending is just four percent of the budget. Certainly it's much more than that, no?

[No Free Beer]

Social Security, Medicare, and Military are the biggest.

If we could reduce some of those (not get rid of), just reduce waste, we could save a lot of money.

[IDefendThePlatform]

I often hear the claim that military spending is just four percent of the budget. Certainly it's much more than that, no?

According to the chart in the OP it's 4.91% of the entire GDP of the country, so yeah it's a lot more than 4% of the budget.

[truelies]

I often hear the claim that military spending is just four percent of the budget. Certainly it's much more than that, no?

4% of the GDP, not the economy

[No Free Beer]

It's just funny to hear 'analysts' say, "we need to counter China's influence..."

what a joke

[asurfaholic]

But but but the turrists

[WilliamC]

The problem is that many people don't see anything wrong with these numbers.

They assume that if the USA weren't the biggest badass in the world then someone else would be and they would be the ones spending themselves into oblivion trying to run the world and this scares them more than the fact that we are destroying our economy and our domestic liberties.

It's all about being the 'strongest' or the 'best', and military power is the only way they measure this.

Now how much should be spent on the military and on National defense is a different question, but as Ron Paul tries to get across much of the money that is spent on the military is for aggression, not defense.

Ultimately the best defense in a well-armed citizenry, at least in terms of protecting against invasion.

[No Free Beer]

The problem is that many people don't see anything wrong with these numbers.

They assume that if the USA weren't the biggest badass in the world then someone else would be and they would be the ones spending themselves into oblivion trying to run the world and this scares them more than the fact that we are destroying our economy and our domestic liberties.

It's all about being the 'strongest' or the 'best', and military power is the only way they measure this.

Now how much should be spent on the military and on National defense is a different question, but as Ron Paul tries to get across much of the money that is spent on the military is for aggression, not defense.

Ultimately the best defense in a well-armed citizenry, at least in terms of protecting against invasion.

But spending this much is absurd. You can be the "best" and world's "strongest", but at this price? It's just so ridiculous.

[WilliamC]

But spending this much is absurd. You can be the "best" and world's "strongest", but at this price? It's just so ridiculous.

Hey, I'm not trying to justify it, just to explain why some people are so bone-headed about the topic.

"It doesn't matter how much we spend so long as it keeps us safe, because if we let some other country come in and conquer us then we'd have been stupid not to spend whatever it took to stay free"

What they don't get is that Peace through Strength isn't the same as Peace through Aggression.

Ron Paul needs to stop using the word 'militarism' or 'overseas spending' and start calling it plain naked aggression and being belligerent.

[klamath]

Our defense budget is actually the defense budget for number 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 and the rest of NATO Europe. Europe was the one that really wanted the libya attack and who did they come screaming to for military advanced hardware?

[Carson]

For a country that doesn't even control its war department it does seem a little high.

Then again if it is true what they say about there be four countries left without their central bank being tied in with the global system of central banks, it stills seem pretty high.

A while back I heard there were only seven nations on the world left without being part of the global controlled network of central banks. The list had Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya on it then. Now I think it is down to Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Cuba.

Then again since the counterfeiting that has been done is to such an extent as they need to keep their foot on the throat of the entire globe, it may be a little short.

Have you looked at the extent of their counterfeiting to dictate their way?



Not just a little was counterfeited up but all of it, the entire money supply over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Is it any wonder they are such geniuses and have something to say about everything we do. Truly! All the rest of us Bozos are expected to fit on one short bus.

If you only double the money supply, the honest hard earned money people have been trying to bank on becomes worth half as much. It allows the counterfeiters the ability to, not only get to your Aunt Martha's savings, but suck the wealth out of it like vampires in the night. Sure you Uncle Phil's stocks double, but they double in cash that is worth half as much. Then on top of it he is stiffed with a capital gains tax imposed by the ones behind the counterfeiting in the first place. That isn't the only area they cut themselves in on your stuff by claiming capital gains. Are these the false profits we were warned about?

Embiggen the Super Dollar below if you still are a little bewildered on counterfeiting basics. VVV

[Zippyjuan]

I often hear the claim that military spending is just four percent of the budget. Certainly it's much more than that, no?

In 2010, the US budget was $3.55 trillion and the Department of Defense was $663.7 billion or just under 19% of total spending. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget

Economic size is an important number too. As a percent of GDP the US spending is not as huge comared to other countries- and we are no longer #1 on that list.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/daily...efence_budgets

Mar 9th 2011, 14:57 by The Economist online
..

The world's biggest defence budgets

THE ten biggest defence budgets for 2010 add up to a total of more than $1.1 trillion, according to the latest Military Balance report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a think-tank. The defence budget of America alone, at $693 billion, accounts for more than 60% of the total. But when defence spending is compared to the overall size of each country's economy, Saudi Arabia tops the list. It spends over 10% of GDP on defence, more than double the proportion spent by America. China ranks second in the world's biggest defence budgets (spending some $76 billion) and also boasts the largest armed forces. Only America, India, Russia and North Korea (not shown) have more than 1m military personnel. Defence budgets have grown since 2005, but the balance of military power may be shifting. Western countries, many of which are engaged in Afghanistan, now face budget constrains and cuts, whilst emerging economies, such as Brazil and China, have increased military spending in line with economic growth.

[RiseAgainst]

It's out of control. And we are looking to make increases...

FOR WHAT!?

To keep brown people out, obviously...

[Carson]

I often hear the claim that military spending is just four percent of the budget. Certainly it's much more than that, no?

How much of the war machine effort has been shifted outside of the military and no longer included in the budget?