Just thought I'd throw in some interesting figures as far as defense spending.





Interesting

Also Interesting


Discuss...

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono In my opinion, the reason we have such a debt/defecit today, is because our governement (and many governements of the world) have become large, uncontrolled beaurocracies where the cost to "make it run," is as much or more than the services it provides. Our government spends a dollar on paperwork for every 1 dollar spent on a government program. This to me is rediculous and the true cause of the nations fiscal woes. We are a country (and world) so consumed with the fear of litigation, making sure all the "t's are crossed and i's dotted," and the absurd hope of having a regulation or manual for everything, that we have let our madness poison our economy. This paperwork insanity also leaks over to health care. Today, 31 cents of every dollar spent on health care goes towards administration and paperwork. That's twice what it is in Canada. Just think if we could reduce that by even ten cents. So much more of our money would actually go towards our health instead of in a filing cabinet. I know I'm sounding like a mad man but this issue goes quiet and I see it as the real reason for our financial troubles. We spend no more today of our GNP on actual government programs than at any other time in our history. What we do spend more on is the paperwork that goes on behind it. It's like we're paying for everything twice, once for the action, and once of the paper trail that comes after it.

Yeah--and if they could get more competent employees to go for public sector jobs.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Just thought I'd throw in some interesting figures as far as defense spending. Interesting Also Interesting Discuss...

Well the factbook puts US spending on defense at 3.2% ... in 1999. What is it now after 2 years of war?

It's still bigger than most comprable european nations.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well the factbook puts US spending on defense at 3.2% ... in 1999. What is it now after 2 years of war? It's still bigger than most comprable european nations.

I saw the author of "Of Paradise and Power" the other day on CSPAN2, he spoke very nice and I'll think all put an order after I'm done with my current tiles -- the argument is European nations are inconcievably weak militarily, they couldn't even collectively muster enough forces to put out the little forest fire right in their own backyards, in the Balkans.

The Europeans live in a state of Paradise - they don't have to spend anything on the military, they have no threat to worry about, but it is only for one reason ---- because of the power of the USA. The military power of the USA and the understanding that the USA will intervene against any threat to peaceful Europe affords them the abilit to use the valuable % of their military budget into benifical social services instead.

I think there is a lot of truth for that, Europe is in paradise due to the power (or the expense) of the USA.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well the factbook puts US spending on defense at 3.2% ... in 1999. What is it now after 2 years of war? It's still bigger than most comprable european nations.

3.3%, at least according to this professor before congress.

LINK

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I saw the author of "Of Paradise and Power" the other day on CSPAN2, he spoke very nice and I'll think all put an order after I'm done with my current tiles -- the argument is European nations are inconcievably weak militarily, they couldn't even collectively muster enough forces to put out the little forest fire right in their own backyards, in the Balkans. The Europeans live in a state of Paradise - they don't have to spend anything on the military, they have no threat to worry about, but it is only for one reason ---- because of the power of the USA. The military power of the USA and the understanding that the USA will intervene against any threat to peaceful Europe affords them the abilit to use the valuable % of their military budget into benifical social services instead. I think there is a lot of truth for that, Europe is in paradise due to the power (or the expense) of the USA.

OH THANK YOU USA! THANK YOU FOR KEEPING EUROPE SAFE!!!!

Please don't cut your military spending! If you do so, what are we going to do when Italy/Germany/France/Norway/Russia/etc start invading their neighbours? I don't wanna die...

Even if your ridiculous comment was true, i couldn't care less. For me, the military in Europe should be reduced to a 50k or 100k elite military units, a rapid response unit.
Oh btw, that's already in motion. Guess who's against the creation of an european army independent of NATO? Good ol' USA.

Get your facts straight before making those shitty comments.

And don't talk about protection from the USA, they have vetoed over 70 security council resolutions against Israel, and you receive over $3 billion a year from your protector. If it wasn't for the USA, maybe half of europe was german now, but then again, there would be no Israel.

quote:

If it wasn't for the USA, maybe half of europe was german now, but then again, there would be no Israel.

Holy shit! You're saying that Israel is comparable to Nazi Germany? I've heard it all now. I know people can be a little fanatical about the whole Israel/Palestine debate, but I've never heard anyone go that far. Get a grip, man.

quote:

Originally posted by borron OH THANK YOU USA! THANK YOU FOR KEEPING EUROPE SAFE!!!!

Thats the one big difference - you Europeans seem to be completely ungrateful for the sacrafises the Americans have done to keep this world safe.

The Israelis do benfit a lot from the protection and favor of the USA - but we are grateful for it!


You don't have to take my hearsay from the author, I encourage you to read the book, its very short only 100 pages, and many Europenas agree with the author at least on serveral points in his book, On Paradise and Power, buy it, or go to your library, read it, (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=books&n=507846), make up your own mind.



...

oh and let me ask you, what do you guys plan to do with a 50k army?

play soldier?!

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

Krugman sets out a rebuttal to those Conservatives who don't admit that taxes play a role in deficits:

quote:

January 27, 2004 OP-ED COLUMNIST Red Ink Realities By PAUL KRUGMAN ven conservatives are starting to admit that George Bush isn't serious when he claims to be doing something about the exploding budget deficit. At best — to borrow the already classic language of the State of the Union address — his administration is engaged in deficit reduction-related program activities. But these admissions have been accompanied by an urban legend about what went wrong. According to cleverly misleading reports from the Heritage Foundation and other like-minded sources, the deficit is growing because Mr. Bush isn't sufficiently conservative: he's allowing runaway growth in domestic spending. This myth is intended to divert attention from the real culprit: sharply reduced tax collections, mainly from corporations and the wealthy. Is domestic spending really exploding? Think about it: farm subsidies aside, which domestic programs have received lavish budget increases over the last three years? Education? Don't be silly: No Child Left Behind is rapidly turning into a sick joke. In fact, many government agencies are severely underfinanced. For example, last month the head of the National Park Service's police admitted to reporters that her force faced serious budget and staff shortages, and was promptly suspended. A recent study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities does the math. While overall government spending has risen rapidly since 2001, the great bulk of that increase can be attributed either to outlays on defense and homeland security, or to types of government spending, like unemployment insurance, that automatically rise when the economy is depressed. Why, then, do we face the prospect of huge deficits as far as the eye can see? Part of the answer is the surge in defense and homeland security spending. The main reason for deficits, however, is that revenues have plunged. Federal tax receipts as a share of national income are now at their lowest level since 1950. Of course, most people don't feel that their taxes have fallen sharply. And they're right: taxes that fall mainly on middle-income Americans, like the payroll tax, are still near historic highs. The decline in revenue has come almost entirely from taxes that are mostly paid by the richest 5 percent of families: the personal income tax and the corporate profits tax. These taxes combined now take a smaller share of national income than in any year since World War II. This decline in tax collections from the wealthy is partly the result of the Bush tax cuts, which account for more than half of this year's projected deficit. But it also probably reflects an epidemic of tax avoidance and evasion. Everyone who wants to understand what's happening to the tax system should read "Perfectly Legal," the new book by David Cay Johnston, The Times's tax reporter, who shows how ideologues have made America safe for wealthy people who don't feel like paying taxes. I was particularly struck by Mr. Johnston's description of the carefully staged Senate Finance Committee hearings in 1997-1998. Senators Trent Lott and Frank Murkowski accused the I.R.S. of "Gestapo"-like tactics, and Congress passed new rules that severely restricted the I.R.S.'s ability to investigate suspected tax evaders. Only later, when the cameras were no longer rolling, did it become clear that the whole thing was a con. Most of the charges weren't true, and there was good reason to believe that the star witness, who dramatically described how I.R.S. agents had humiliated him, really was engaged in major-league tax evasion (he eventually paid $23 million, insisting he had done no wrong). And this was part of a larger con. What's playing out in America right now is the bait-and-switch strategy known on the right as "starve the beast." The ultimate goal is to slash government programs that help the poor and the middle class, and use the savings to cut taxes for the rich. But the public would never vote for that. So the right has used deceptive salesmanship to undermine tax enforcement and push through upper-income tax cuts. And now that deficits have emerged, the right insists that they are the result of runaway spending, which must be curbed. While this strategy has been remarkably successful so far, it also offers a big opportunity to the opposition. So here's a test for the Democratic contenders: details of your proposals aside, which of you can do the best job explaining the ongoing budget con to the American people? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/27/opinion/27KRUG.html

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Holy shit! You're saying that Israel is comparable to Nazi Germany? I've heard it all now. I know people can be a little fanatical about the whole Israel/Palestine debate, but I've never heard anyone go that far. Get a grip, man.

If you don't possess the necessary intelligence to understand the posts here, please refrain from commenting.

So let me explain it for you: what i said is that if the USA didn't declare war on germany in WW2, probably half of europe was german AND THERE WOULD BE NO ISRAEL SINCE IT WAS CREATED IN '46 AFTER THE WAR ENDED and the germans would continue their jew-killing. Got it?


Yoepus, 50k or 100k is more than enough for a rapid response unit (ie, intervention in 6 hours in a radius of 5000 km). We're not in war zone like you.

Let's stop the israeli-palestinian comments in this thread, there are other threads for that. I believe this is for discussing the USA budget. Doesn't anyone agree that their military budget is too high?

Leave the Israeli/Pal crap out of this thread ... it already has about 4 or 5 threads on the main page

Now back to the topic at hand.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono 3.3%, at least according to this professor before congress. LINK

Hmmm well that's definetely a lot less than I thought it would be which is a good thing. Perhaps at a time like this (when involved in two semi-wars) such a high budget is needed to sustain the occupation while ensuring that modernization efforts are maintained. However, I would pose that in peacetime, such a high budget would be completely unnecessary regardless of its comprable expenditures in gdp to other nations. Keep in mind that I am first in line to advocate a strong military, but I think much of military is still a cold war military. Rumsfeld has accomplished some efforts into making it a more mobile army but a lot more can be done. The new seawolf and virginia class subs are a huge drain on the navy budget while one can question the the number of orders for f-22 and f-35 class fighters. Already the fighters they are designed to replace have nearly unmatched air superiority ... meanwhile, very few other countries are pursuing third generation fighters to the degree we are. Anyway, I think there are a number of programs such as that are not needed to the degree that we have and we can cut costs significantly.

Basically, I think that we can have just as much effectiveness with our fighting forces with defense spending capped at around 2.5% as we do now.

___________________
Retro ...