Dare I ask why that quotation is in any way even slightly relevant to the thread?

I figured the quote was a slight hint at his feelings and rationalization on the subject.

I'd like to know what form of crack the creators of that graph were on.

Oh, wait, here it is:
"• Interest on national debt (80%) created by military spending, $390 billion "

Of *course*! All our problems are because of the military! We *certainly* wouldn't havent't pissed money away on anything else.

Using that logic, you can point to any expenditure you dislike - let's say Foreign Aid, for shits and giggles - and say every cent spent in the last fifty years has come due to deficit spending, and that had we not done X, income and outlays would have remained *exactly the same*, except for a reduction of the debt load.

Which is, shall we say, a bit of a farce.

so what exactly is this thread about? what if we totally cut our military budget and became like switzerland? haha We aren't even on the Dip map anyways......

I believe I recently heard that if the major nations all abandoned their military spending for a year and donated it then all world poverty would be solved. Does anyone know if that's true or where it came from?

re jmatt: we are though :D

Much of the debt has been because of military spending. World War II was a big deal. The other wars, to a lesser extent. Add in Reagan's spending, and voila. Not sure you could say that about any other item. Maybe you would not say 80%, but some of it definitely is.

@figlesquidge: do you think america has poverty? do you think if they cut militrary spending for one year, (maybe asking that americans guarentee their own freedom by buying arms and what not) would solve the american poverty problem?

Do you think donations are the best way to solve poverty? do you know as any country which doesn't have a poverty problem?

The global military spending is about $1.5 trillion.

To get everyone above the $10 a day poverty line ($3,600 annually) would cost of the order of $10 trillion per annum.

So no, figle, it isn't.

Not to mention the economic points that show that aid doesn't work (certainly not efficiently)

@Tantris George W. Bush held the two most expensive terms ever seen in by a presidential term. This is by percent (and actual amounts) to compare to other, earlier, presidents. You want to talk about Reagan and his failure of an economic idea? Try George W. Bush first.

And then when you're done there, Obama will have got through a term to end all terms (Perhaps literally? Discuss;)).

@Iceray0: I agree, but Bush's spending were in a number of areas(Medicare Part D). Reagan threw a ton at the military alone.

@TheGhostmaker: Honestly, I think the country was in a bad financial situation when Obama took office. Even if the president following Bush did nothing, we would still be in a major amount of debt. With the wars going on, that have to be ended in an orderly fashion, there is no way to cut out some of it. The stimulus was the correct action according to most of the economists that are not trickle-down, supply siders(ie, those Obama and sane people would listen to). So, mostly you are worried about the health care bill?

90% of the bush administration debt is directly caused by the Iraq war. So 90% of the highest spending administration...

think the tax cuts are also considered to have caused it.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

Anyone wanting to know about global expenditure on the military to force details and even oil consumption. Might be relevant to the discussion.

@Hereward77: I am not sure what I think of the link I provided, but it makes some claims. Specifically, the US spends more on military than they say they officially do. The budget for nuclear weapons goes to the DOE, and isn't included. Also, pretty much both the wars are not officially in the spending.

This is an interesting quote:
"The math is compelling: if we do not make reductions approximating 25 percent of the military budget starting fairly soon, it will be impossible to continue to fund an adequate level of domestic activity even with a repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy."

I guess I had never really paid attention to calls for cuts in the military.

That "budget for nuclear weapons" statement is a gross misrepresentation. The money for nuclear weapons that does to the DOE is for decommisioning and clean up. I used to work on a superfund site (Fernald, OH) and it had absolutely nothing to do with the military because we were cleaning up the crap left behind when the plant was shut down without warning and all the workers threw the switches and went home. Enriched Uranium was left sitting in the pipes and over the course of nearly a decade, it had started seeping into the ground and the water table of the area. So that funding is to clean up the mess made by the Feds uncontrolled and unregulated shutdown of the processing plants and now for the decommissioning of the weapons themselves.

The DOE's website says:
"The NNSA also maintains and enhances the safety, reliability, and performance of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile, including the ability to design, produce, and test, in order to meet national security requirements."

The NNSA is part of the DOE, so it maintains them at least.

We spend sooo much on the military-industrial complex. So many cuts are not only necessary, but wouldn't even affect our military supremacy, which is complete.

Read "The Limits of Power" by Andrew J. Bacevich.

Oh and they seem to do other things too:
"Through the Naval Reactors program, NNSA provides the U.S. Navy with the reliable and safe nuclear power necessary to propel 40 percent of the Navy’s combat fleet."

I wanna play a game with these players:
noob179, draugnar, the_master_warrior, rlumley, timetokill, tru ninja
if you want it, let's discuss here the type of the game.

sorry wrong thread

The quote is relevant because whenever we cut our defense budget, bad things happen. Whenever our military technology becomes inferior to that of another country, bad things happen. In the end, deterrence is always better than war.

So how does FDR saying that we got attacked give you the conclusion that the bigger our military budget is, the better off we will be?

"whenever our military technology becomes inferior..."
We have the most advanced fighter...which we sell to other countries. This fighter has never been shot down in a dogfight. Our response is to build a more advanced fighter...for all the dogfights we are in. The people we sell the old fighter to, can't even challenge this new fighter...so, when we need to invade England, we are ok now.

Economically, we are being destroyed right now. Militarily, we are the strongest. We are still not going to get into a direct confrontation with China, Russia, or England. Why do we need to spend more than all of them, and 40 other countries, combined?

I'm just reminding everyone of the consequences of defense cuts.

The United States military budget is 40% of the ENTIRE WORLD'S military budget. Reducing it by 10% and allocating that to the development of alternative energy would probably go a long way towards maintaining peace. I'm all for having the best means of protection feasible, but we need to get real.