http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Ar...ilitarySpending



The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2006 is $441.6 billion. (

Here are a couple fast highlights from the article:

The US military budget was almost as much as the rest of the world’s.
The US military budget was more than 6 times larger than the Russian budget, the second largest spender.
The US military budget was more than 30 times as large as the combined spending of the seven “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $13 billion.
It was more than the combined spending of the next fourteen nations.
The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending...

The estimate of about 441 billion is a gross understatement, as it does not cover the war in Iraq, Homeland Security, several other war-related items such as veteran's pensions, or 90% of the interest being paid on the national debt, which was caused by wars going back to world war one that have never been repaid.

Try a trillion dollars for a nice round number. A trillion US dollars here, a trillion dollars there....every year....before you know about it, you're talking about real money.

As you can see, figures can be misleading. The reason why the US is spending so much is because the US economy is SO HUGE. The most important thing to use for a comparison is the total military expenditure with relation to the GDP. Here is what I mean. The OsMan is just trying to stir up trouble again. That is all.

Graph 1: US military spending as a percentage of GDP, 1940--2003

Too bad Johny that the amount of money does not justify the threat, especially when USA now borrows 1.8 billion dollars a day to keep the economy afloat.

JohnL, I'll accept your graph as accurate, except that the national debt servicing is so much higher now (perhaps even as a percentage of GDP). But, so what if it's accurate? The initial post's URL shows that the amount we are spending is insane. Psychotically, criminally insane. It's been insane since 1940, for that matter. If we have grandchildren, they're inheriting a debt which may soon be ten trillion dollars, nine trillion of it caused by warmongering.

Imagine, John, that you spend 115% of your take home pay every day for the last 65 years, and you now have 1,234,567 assault rifles in your garage, ninety armored Humvees, 698,678 tanks, and 6 billion rounds of heavy ammo, to guard your home against intruders, while you can't send your kids to university, or afford one hour in the emergency room.

I agree with you that the spending is the REAL problem here. I think that the Republicans have been very derellect here. And listening to Grizzly, Expat, and others, that the Dems would be better is pure horse hockey. Their history is worse still. They just happen to be in the opposition, and are saying the right things. And what is happening has been my most serious problem with Bush And the Republican Congress.

That snide little remark by DeLay several months ago, when asked how the Congress could take out more spending, and he made some flippant remark about EVERYTHING being shaved down to it's base, was a huge mistake, and alienated him from many people, including myself.

Now, that being stated, there is good debt and bad debt. If you buy a house, you go into serious debt, yet it is good debt, because houses tend to appreciate steadilly over time, more than the principle Plus interest. So, I am not all that worried about debt, as long as economic growth is more than able to accomodate it. So, the total amount of Dollars spent over income is not as serious as the total amount of debt with relation to GDP. That is the REAL baseline to monitor.

So, via your example, if you spend 115% of your income, yet you keep getting raises that equal or exceed 15%, you are doing alright. The only problem is that it is not prudent, as it is far better to begin paying down the debt, or investing in the ability to increase the amount of raises. Either way, it is better.