What is Digg?458 Comments
- uiguy3, on 04/27/2008, -4/+120Wait didn't Eisenhower warn us about the dangers of the military industrial complex in 1960?
We should''ve listened. - BassMastr, on 04/27/2008, -7/+78We can hardly place all the blame on the military...There is plenty of blame to go around to all politicians... I didn't write this, but thought it was relevant.
The next time you hear a politician use the Word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending
YOUR Tax money.
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend,
But one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of its releases.
-A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
-A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
-A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
-A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
-A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, At the rate our government Is spending it.
While this thought is still fresh in our brain, let's take a look at New Orleans It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D), Is presently asking the Congress for $250 BILLION to rebuild New Orleans. Interesting number, What does it mean?
Well, if you are one of 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, child), You each get $516,528. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans, your home gets $1,329,787. Or, if you are a family of four, your family gets $2,066,012.
Are all your calculators broken??
AccountsReceivableTax
BuildingPermit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Perm it Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax),
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax),
Liquor Tax,
Luxury Tax,
Marriage License Tax,
Medicare Tax,
Property Tax,
Real Estate Tax,
Service charge taxes,
Social Secur ity Tax,
Road Usage Tax (Truckers),
Sales Taxes,
Recreational Vehicle Tax,
School Tax,
State Income Tax,
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA),
Telephone Federal Excise Tax,
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fe e Tax,
Telephone Federal, State and Local Su rcharge Tax,
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax,
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax,
Telephone State and Local Tax,
Telephone Usage ChargeTax,
Utility Tax,
Vehicle Lic ense Registration Tax,
Vehicle Sales Tax,
Watercraft Registration Tax,
Well Permit Tax,
Workers Compensation Tax.
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, And United States was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What happened?
Can you spell 'politicians!' - JEAH, on 04/27/2008, -19/+73Entitlement programs have returns. I guess military spending does too as long as the oil starts flowing... right? Unless it ends up elevation the cost of oil. oops..
***** off - angusm, on 04/27/2008, -1/+52Hmm. According to the article, defense spending has doubled since the 1990s (and that figure doesn't include the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). As you may recall, the Soviet Union finally collapsed in 1991. Now that we're no longer facing off against a nuclear-armed superpower that wants to take over the world, we have to spend twice as much on arms? Some mistake there, surely.
Speaking of the Soviet Union, it's worth remembering that the Republican account of the collapse of the USSR holds that it came about because Reagan's aggressive expansion of defense spending forced the Soviet Union to raise its own spending to unsustainable levels, ultimately causing the collapse of the Soviet economy and thus the whole system. It's a tribute to some people's powers of doublethink that they can proudly declare that the Soviets bankrupted themselves buying bombs while failing to notice that we might just do the same. - inactive, on 04/27/2008, -15/+63Haha, defense he calls it...
- relic180, on 04/27/2008, -12/+55Entitlement programs involve money going back into the economy in one way or another. We might as well light our military budget on fire for all the good it does our social or economical infrastructure. I wouldn't even stop there. The military has many negative impacts on social and economic aspects of our country aside from the huge amount of money it costs.
The point is, our military budget as huge as it is, goes straight down the toilet. - philodygmn, on 04/27/2008, -18/+60Entitlements? The Pentagon's black budget, and you want to cut health care? WTF is wrong with you?
I happen to despise Big Pharma (another arm of the military-industrial complex) and its 3rd-party money in sick-care (while it discredits research into health care and prevention), any distraction away from the millstone of "defense" is a _mistake_. - kemp34, on 04/27/2008, -6/+40Even if this is true, your implication is a logical fallacy.
Military spending, especially guns, ammo, bombs and other very expensive rapidly depreciating equipment, is a total black hole of expense. This is analogous to building vehicles and burning them. It costs a lot, takes a lot of effort and is totally wasteful, providing no return whatsoever.
While I disagree with forced social transfer payments, ponzi schemes and wealth redistribution programs, the reality is, these items are not nearly as wasteful as rapidly consumed military expenditures. People re-use the money they receive back into the American economy. Waste is still inherent in this system as well, and it should be ended too, but the military spending is far more wasteful. - ichbeineinrcg, on 04/27/2008, -2/+33It's too bad that those with inflexible minds can't get past the Cold War and realize it's 2008. We're trying to fight terrorists like they have a base of operations and there is a front where we're on one side and they're on the other, but the absolute stupidity of trying to beat a nebulous group like Al Qaeda with conventional warfare is analagous to trying to kill a swarm of bees with a fencing sword.
But for folks like you, as long as there are bombs and guns, then the government must be doing something right. It's thinking like that that will cost us not only the war, but the economy as well. - Dumbledorito, on 04/27/2008, -10/+39Thanks for not providing any, yourself.
- benholmes, on 04/27/2008, -5/+32Considering that defense amounts to half the budget, I have a hard time believing that benefit programs are a larger portion of the budget than defense.
- Zera, on 04/27/2008, -3/+30So did the Founding Fathers.
They warned us against the problematic nature of a "standing army", aka professional army. The Founding Fathers envisioned a military primarily comprised of regular citizens, with a few small percent being elite, highly trained, professional military personnel. Much like Switzerland where every household has at least one automatic weapon, and yet the nation has a relatively small military, the founder's view was to avoid a large professional army, not only for the pure expense, but because of other consequences a large standing army entails, such as -needing things to do------ and makes it much easier to get into unnecessary wars when the people going to war can't really voice their dissent. But if it is you and me and every citizen, we are far more likely to speak our minds. - borez, on 04/27/2008, -4/+28$514,809,215,076 spent on the war on terror (at the time of posting this comment)
Of course Americas heading for bankruptcy, the government is out of control. All it'll take is for a few key players to switch from buying oil in Dollars to Euros, therefore wiping out the trade deficit interest free trillion dollar loan and the whole economic system could fall like a house of cards.
Source: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home - Dumbledorito, on 04/27/2008, -8/+32If it's good enough for Dick Cheney on the floor of the Senate...
- jlhoben, on 04/27/2008, -10/+33Another baby boomer legacy. Thanks idiots.
- Lixie, on 04/27/2008, -8/+31Let's talk about entitlement shall we?
I don't believe you're entitled to my tax dollars to buy the world's largest military. I don't believe you people should be entitled to a world spanning empire, or entitled to a surveillance society, an NSA, a CIA, a DoD, or a Dept. of Homeland Security. I don't believe people should be entitled a million person standing army in peace times, or army bases around the world. Or entitled the world's largest Navy and Air Force. I don't believe you're entitled to my tax dollars to fund perpetual wars that you believe "protect" you.
I want my tax money back that you spent on a war machine. You're not entitled to it. - inactive, on 04/27/2008, -6/+28The war is where the money goes but it's not why the economy is in bad shape. It was in bad shape and then you went for a war that pretty much ruined your country with debt.
Wars are good for the economy of the aggressor. The problem is that you outsourced the war.
You outsource everything. Blackwater? What the ***** does the American Military, home of the seals and marines need mercenaries for? That's about 200k a day. And that's just one example.
Wars usually help the economy by creating new jobs, domestic investment and spending, and by creating new markets (the invaded country). None of that happened this time.
The money leaves, never comes back. 40% of the value of the american dollar disappears in 5 years. - Terr01, on 04/27/2008, -8/+29"Entitlement programs cost more than defense does."
And do a hell of a lot more direct good, considering that a lot of our military expeditures are just "staying number one by an extreme margin". Upgrading things constantly with additional R&D etc.
I mean, your grocery budget is bigger than your porn budget (I hope!) but that doesn't mean that it's the first thing you should cut when times are tight.
Also, entitlements are largely "self funding", in that that people pay in and people cash out. By comparison, military spending is "OMG we need to do this gimme money". The problems Social Security etc. may see in the future are largely an issue of a demographic bump and changes in healthcare costs, rather than someone saying "Hmm, we need to add more services." - pintomp3, on 04/27/2008, -7/+28we are a country with two friendly countries and nothing but ocean on our borders. calling our military budget justified is like you need an tank to get to work safely.
- pintomp3, on 04/27/2008, -7/+28the "defense" program is the largest entitlement program we have.
- kemp34, on 04/27/2008, -6/+26Big Pharma is one of a number of reasons why marijuana is still illegal.
- madfrogurt, on 04/27/2008, -2/+21I'm usually wary of any statistics that show really lopsided figures (like the chart used in this article), and was surprised when the CIA fact book and Wikipedia's estimates on comparitive military spending gave roughly the same figures (look under "Military Budget of the People's Republic of China on wiki).
It's amazing just how exploited the US government is these days by weapons contractors, defense contractors (Triple Canopy and Blackwater), and private supply companies (Halliburton). What ever happened to laws against war profiteering? I guess when wars are fought preemptively and there is no real threat to America, there is no shame in raiding the treasury for self gain. - smacksaw, on 04/27/2008, -6/+24We'd save a ton of money if we had mandatory militia service for everyone over age 18.
We'd have a national defence (not an offence)
Everyone who wants awesome guns would get them
We'd actually give a ***** about our country and be involved in the security of it
Look at Switzerland. That's how you do it. It doesn't matter if you're a tax-and-spend liberal or selfish right-winger, we'd have less in taxes and debt, while what we paid in taxes would actually be able to fund all of these social programmes to a point where it would still be a big improvement over current tax rates.
Our current definition of "Military"? No. National, gov't-sponsored militia? Yes. - Aokitsune, on 04/27/2008, -1/+17My comparison is conventional war is like bowling.
The "War on Terror" is like Whack-a-Mole.
Seriously- expensive military toys are just not effective against decentralized, determined groups. Look at Vietnam- the Viet Cong suffered huge casualties, but the US couldn't win. - hinchb, on 04/27/2008, -1/+16Do you know the difference between GDP and a budget?
- ichbeineinrcg, on 04/27/2008, -5/+18Completely justified? If you think there isn't bloat in our armed forces, you're a fool.
- inactive, on 04/27/2008, -2/+15The US has a tapeworm of entitlement-crazy elitists, a tiny parasytical upper crust of the richest people in the world, who have a stronglehold on US society and are fighting tooth and nail to sustain whatever they think is theirs. They will sway corporations, media, voters and marshal the biggest army ever, just to cultivate an environment where they can do the hell it is they want to do - basicly enjoy their money and their power. And when they left their host broken, exhausted, depleted - they'll move on and infest and ride another country into the ground. China? Russia?
The world must wake up about this elite. - insomniac8400, on 04/27/2008, -8/+21What are you retarded? Defense is over half the national budget.
- relic180, on 04/27/2008, -3/+16Read my comment again, I think you got the gist of it backwards. Maybe my wording wasn't the best but I was hoping the word "insanely" would tip people off to what I was trying to say.
Perhaps a /sarcasm would have been in order. - Gerz1219, on 04/27/2008, -0/+12This is true to a certain extent, but much of the defense companies' investment only serves to bolster their capacity for making... more useless weapons systems to fight the Soviet Union. The leviathan feeds on itself. Individual workers may benefit from the sustained creation of useless jobs -- and they may put their salaries back into the economy -- but unlike most public works projects, nothing of value to society is ever actually produced.
If the government wants to build an aqueduct or an interstate highway system, they are primarily trying to keep people off the street. But they are also producing something of value to the civilian infrastructure. Once we've evaporated money on defense systems, we're only left with tools we don't need to fight wars we can't afford. - pintomp3, on 04/27/2008, -1/+13being against war-profiteering and the killing of innocent civilians is apparently anti-american these days.
- leszek, on 04/27/2008, -1/+12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken ...
- dbs1221, on 04/27/2008, -0/+11What makes them anti-American? What does that even mean?
- bphicke, on 04/27/2008, -1/+11It helps a couple people with political ties in our economy.
- pintomp3, on 04/27/2008, -2/+12actually, the problem is corporatism. when you have the corporations buying legislation that suits them, you have the destruction of the competition. because of lobbyists and special interests, the government is being used against it's own people. the government is just the tool, the ones pulling the levers behind it are corporations.
- Puisapres, on 04/27/2008, -1/+11Dugg for the awesomely bad title, which was apparently written in preschool-speak. "How spending made the economy broke"?
- VitriolAndAngst, on 04/27/2008, -1/+10It is anti-American now to go after corruption and fraud? Heavens, perhaps Al Capone should never have been put behind bars. Because from your diatribe, it was anti-American of Eliot Ness to accuse an American of organized crime.
Just because Bush's address says; "White House" and the Pentagon gets paid by tax dollars, does not mean the people screwing America are in fact "America" they are criminals who have taken the reigns of power. - VitriolAndAngst, on 04/27/2008, -1/+10Even worse; the bankrupting of America was on purpose.
- savantidiot, on 04/27/2008, -4/+13I dugg you up for the first bit, but, I think its obvious it doesn't all go straight down the toilet. I am 100% against our absurd military spending, but it doesn't take an eight year old to know that much of the money going to our service men and the American companies granted contracts, cycles through the economy as they spend, invest, and higher employees.
- borez, on 04/27/2008, -1/+10We'll see
FTR: I work for LSE so I kinda understand macro-economics. - makkaveli19, on 04/27/2008, -1/+10trust me, you guys are way to far away from what you were founded on.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 04/27/2008, -1/+10You are assuming that this Military spending is about security for the US. I don't see any evidence that the Billionaire elite give a ***** about whatever country that they are feeding off of. There are a few self-made billionaires who are the "good guys" but the rest want a monopoly, and to lobby congress for free money, and legislation to protect their profits while providing barriers to entry for competitors.
The Iraq war is so expensive, because we have more contractors, requiring 10 times the funds, doing all the functions that our military used to. The military is spending more money than any other country in history to destroy the morale of our military. Biggest ***** traitorous scam ever. - MattJF317, on 04/27/2008, -3/+12*****. The chart says it all:
1. The US (#1 in military spending) spends almost 10 times that of the #2 (China).
2. The US spends over half (57%) of the world's total military budget. - elliotys, on 04/27/2008, -0/+8Apparently he likes to have his tax money wasted.
- mOdQuArK, on 04/27/2008, -2/+10Yeah, it's a tiny fraction of the U.S. military budget, plus they're not going into debt to the U.S. to finance it. Who is being short-sighted again?
- Lazydriver, on 04/27/2008, -2/+10What the ***** is wrong with your rationality, people? I'll tell you: you're being fed ***** and lies that you don't bother checking! You're on the same league as the conspiracy theorists! So please shut the ***** up and provide some hard facts before you go "GOD DAMN LIBERALS" like some person who's watched too much FOX NEWS "Fair and Balanced" (*****).
- NoDitchDigging, on 04/27/2008, -0/+8Dugg down for "liberalism is a mental disorder". Parroting a radio talk show host gets you ZERO respect. Try offering an intelligent argument instead of cussing and name calling.
- DeadlyTedly, on 04/27/2008, -0/+8In regards to the above sources, yes, that is correct for the standard budget, but does not include the special disbursements for the Iraq war.
- Jimmerz, on 04/27/2008, -2/+10Perhaps codes of conduct, the Geneva Convention, and rules of engagement should be observed rather than circumvented by hiring thugs. Just a thought.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 451 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is