NationStates Jolt Archive

Many people here seem to agree that defense spending under the Bush administration is too high and should be reduced. Other people think the defense budget is not yet high enough. Participate in this poll and post your opinion here!



EDIT 4/5/06

MUHAHAHA! THIS WAS A TRICK QUESTION.
The tip off should have been the social spending - since it has been so much in the news lately about how out-of-control social security costs are becoming.

Here are the actual numbers;

In fiscal year 1970, our spending on national defense represented 42% of the entire year’s budget, vs. 20% of the current 2006 fiscal year budget that has been earmarked for defense. Our spending on national defense was +170% larger than our spending on social security in 1970. Our spending on national defense in 2006 is projected to be 3% less than our spending on social security (source: Treasury Department).

So as you can see - ALL options were actually a vote to increase military spending.

Honorable mention goes to Markreich with this post;
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10701401&postcount=51

Nice to see someone who bothers with details like 'the facts' befor forming an opinion.

Here is another little tid-bit for those who ran the tangent of medical insurance;

Of the $2.5 trillion spent by our government in fiscal year 2005, 49% of the total was spent on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security (source: Treasury Department). In the last 25 years, overall federal government spending has increased by a MULTIPLE of 7. Over the same 25 years, Medicare spending has increased by a MULTIPLE of 17 (source: White House).


And for the 'huge' deficit crowd-
Fiscal year 2005 (10/01/04 to 9/30/05) had a $318 billion budget deficit (approximately $2.2 trillion of receipts and $2.5 trillion of spending) or 2.6% of our nations GDP. Since 1970, the USA has averaged a budget deficit each year equal to 2.5% of GDP (source: Treasury Department).

There - now that you have the facts consider your prior - and uninformed - vote. Please discuss and share your thoughts.

maybe if we had the money to spend i'd be okay with it. but, i mean, come on, would you quit your job and spend more money?

we cut income and then spend. what logic is that?

his spending compares to Clinton. except for, you know, Clinton had the money to spend that much (because ----OMG, teh evilll!!!11!!1---- taxes were higher.

logic. it doesn't apply often, and it really should.
really.

maybe if we had the money to spend i'd be okay with it. but, i mean, come on, would you quit your job and spend more money?

we cut income and then spend. what logic is that?

his spending compares to Clinton. except for, you know, Clinton had the money to spend that much (because ----OMG, teh evilll!!!11!!1---- taxes were higher.

logic. it doesn't apply often, and it really should.
really.
Not sure what you're talking about since we've collected more money in taxes every year over year since before Kennedy was in office...

Not sure what you're talking about since we've collected more money in taxes every year over year since before Kennedy was in office...

see that river of red ink, flowing from DC?

that's what i'm talking about.

christ, here in NJ, we're striving for a balanced budget so we can work from there.

show me a republican who wants to raise taxes and i'll show you a picture of me hanging myself :D

see that river of red ink, flowing from DC?

that's what i'm talking about.

christ, here in NJ, we're striving for a balanced budget so we can work from there.

show me a republican who wants to raise taxes and i'll show you a picture of me hanging myself :D
So you believe raising prices is the only way to make more money?

So you believe raising prices is the only way to make more money?

taxes my dear friend. taxes.

did i mention prices? lets check



No



thought i'd check! :p

Many people here seem to agree that defense spending under the Bush administration is too high and should be reduced. Other people think the defense budget is not yet high enough. Participate in this poll and post your opinion here!
It's probably a little high, but I can live with it. I'd rather see the money spent more wisely, however, and spent on things that address the current needs rather than on expensive weapons platforms or on a SDI system that doesn't work and isn't necessary. Soldiers could use raises, for instance, and more medical care, since they're being asked to cover more expenses out of pocket than they ought to be. They could also use better body armor and helmets. We could also stand to stop outsourcing stuff like food service to companies like Halliburton--handle that in house for lower cost. And we could stop signing contracts with outside security firms like Blackwater that charge us ten times what we could do it for ourselves and that leach away our best men by paying them a lot more to do the same job. I've got no problem with Blackwater doing what they do, but the US government ought not be paying them millions of dollars to do it.

taxes my dear friend. taxes.

did i mention prices? lets check


thought i'd check! :p


The question is valid - your response is not.

The question is valid - your response is not.
but i did not mention prices and do not know what taxes/gov't income have to do with prices.

admit it, you snickered at it. even in a pissed sorta way.

but i did not mention prices and do not know what taxes/gov't income have to do with prices.

admit it, you snickered at it. even in a pissed sorta way.

Taxes are the price of living and doing business in the US. (and most other nations) I did not snicker - I asked a simple question. That you read it that way indicates nothing.

Taxes are the price of living and doing business in the US. (and most other nations) I did not snicker - I asked a simple question. That you read it that way indicates nothing.
you had no reaction to the 'checking' thing?

oh. i see. so i guess that means the price of living in the US is getting cheaper and cheaper?

or do i suspect that america wants things but doesn't want to pay for them (a la healthcare)?

but if we raise that price we can give more to our people, rich or poor, white or black, without the overall discrimination of private corporations.

Not sure what you're talking about since we've collected more money in taxes every year over year since before Kennedy was in office...
I know that's an article of faith among conservatives, but could you provide some backup for that, like some actual facts and figures? I'm having trouble finding a chart that details that statement, and my memory tells me that it's incorrect, that revenue actually fell the first year after Reagan's tax-slashing episode in 1981, and that he agreed to tax increases in 1982 to make up for it.

you had no reaction to the 'checking' thing?

oh. i see. so i guess that means the price of living in the US is getting cheaper and cheaper?

or do i suspect that america wants things but doesn't want to pay for them (a la healthcare)?

but if we raise that price we can give more to our people, rich or poor, white or black, without the overall discrimination of private corporations.


What checking thing are you referring to?

You have indicated here that you do believe that raising prices is the only way to make more money, right?

What checking thing are you referring to?

You have indicated here that you do believe that raising prices is the only way to make more money, right?

nevermind on the checking thing. jokes can e lost on people it seems. . .

i indicated that raising taxes, especially income, would help reduce the deficit and therefore eventually give more to the people in things like healthcare and SS.

i said nothing of prices, unless taxes are prices. i said nothing of money, unless healthcare is money to you. . .
*are you a large corporation, by any chance?*

the military should get 90% of the budget oorah!

nevermind on the checking thing. jokes can e lost on people it seems. . .

i indicated that raising taxes, especially income, would help reduce the deficit and therefore eventually give more to the people in things like healthcare and SS.

i said nothing of prices, unless taxes are prices. i said nothing of money, unless healthcare is money to you. . .
*are you a large corporation, by any chance?*


Oh - that was a joke?

So raising taxes is the only way to create greater revenues? Higher prices=more profit according to your economic model?

Taxes are prices.

Unless you expect healthcare workers to work for songs and happy thoughts I don't know how else you would expect to provide healthcare other than with money.

Oh - that was a joke?

So raising taxes is the only way to create greater revenues - ala higher prices=more profit according to your economic model.

Taxes are prices.

Unless you expect healthcare workers to work for songs and happy thoughts I don't know how else you would expect to provide healthcare other than with money.Well, considering that the highest single cost to healthcare providers is administration and bill collection from insurance companies, if the feds stepped in with a single-payer system, we could get rid of a lot of the unnecessary expense. We spend more per capita in the US than any other country, and get overall shitty health care as a result. The rich do great, and the people who still get health care through their employers do okay, but for a large percentage of the US, health care is a dream (in the sense that it's not real).

INCOME taxes. that go to GOV'T DEFICIT. To Pay for the healthcare.

INCOME taxes. that go to GOV'T DEFICIT. To Pay for the healthcare.

Huh? Did you really say that? If it made sense it would still be wrong. On many many levels.

Try complete sentences - it will make sure your meaning is clear.

Well, considering that the highest single cost to healthcare providers is administration and bill collection from insurance companies, if the feds stepped in with a single-payer system, we could get rid of a lot of the unnecessary expense. We spend more per capita in the US than any other country, and get overall shitty health care as a result. The rich do great, and the people who still get health care through their employers do okay, but for a large percentage of the US, health care is a dream (in the sense that it's not real).
There's other ways to reduce the cost of insurance. Eliminating the government requirements to provide all types of insurance to everyone would be a start. If we could start shopping for health insurance like we do auto insurance, we would buy the coverage we wanted, not what is provided in some canned plan that our employer has to offer.

How much less would my policy be if I didn't have to pay for maternity benefits? A lot, I'd bet. But I can't turn it down.

Well, considering that the highest single cost to healthcare providers is administration and bill collection from insurance companies, if the feds stepped in with a single-payer system, (snip).

There is some merit to your idea of a standardized billing system - but I am more curious about your statement that the highest single cost to healthcare providors is collecting receivables . On what data or source do you make this claim?

Huh? Did you really say that?

yes.

i indicated that raising taxes, especially income, would help reduce the deficit and therefore eventually give more to the people in things like healthcare and SS.

yes i did.

and how would that be wrong? explain.

Myrmidonisia

PARTY FOUL!!!

You didn't yet post on the original topic!

Come on - before you can participate in a tangent you really should post about the topic of the thread. I think it is a law or something. The karma police are on their way now...

yes.

yes i did.

and how would that be wrong? explain.


According to your economic theory - Whenever an entity raises it's prices it will also raise it's revenues. Therefore the entity which charges the highest price has the highest revenues.

Myrmidonisia

PARTY FOUL!!!

You didn't yet post on the original topic!

Come on - before you can participate in a tangent you really should post about the topic of the thread. I think it is a law or something. The karma police are on their way now...
Damn. I knew something felt out of order in the universe.

We should increase the portion of defense spending that is used to acquire telemetry and satellite tracking systems.

I don't think that will entirely restore the universe to it's prior state, but maybe I can sacrifice a Democrat to atone for the error in my ways.

There's other ways to reduce the cost of insurance. Eliminating the government requirements to provide all types of insurance to everyone would be a start. If we could start shopping for health insurance like we do auto insurance, we would buy the coverage we wanted, not what is provided in some canned plan that our employer has to offer.

How much less would my policy be if I didn't have to pay for maternity benefits? A lot, I'd bet. But I can't turn it down.
That's the way insurance works--you pay for stuff you'll never use, and others pay for stuff they never use and the risk gets spread around evenly. If you suffer a catastrophic illness that only one in 100,000 suffers, the other 99,999 in the pool have covered you instead of you covering yourself. If only women of childbearing age were paying for maternity coverage, the premiums would be so high that no one would be able to afford them. What keeps the costs lower is that the company is spreading the risk around.

Damn. I knew something felt out of order in the universe.

We should increase the portion of defense spending that is used to acquire telemetry and satellite tracking systems.

I don't think that will entirely restore the universe to it's prior state, but maybe I can sacrifice a Democrat to atone for the error in my ways.

If we do that it wil make it easier for the karma police to find you!

According to your economic theory - Whenever an entity raises it's prices it will also raise it's revenues. Therefore the entity which charges the highest price has the highest revenues.

i speak of income taxes, not prices, to eliminate deficit, not raise revenue.

where are you getting prices and revenue??? :confused:

That's the way insurance works--you pay for stuff you'll never use, and others pay for stuff they never use and the risk gets spread around evenly. If you suffer a catastrophic illness that only one in 100,000 suffers, the other 99,999 in the pool have covered you instead of you covering yourself. If only women of childbearing age were paying for maternity coverage, the premiums would be so high that no one would be able to afford them. What keeps the costs lower is that the company is spreading the risk around.

I suspect that is part of the problem with healthcare insurance - it is getting over-used to the point that for many people it could be cheaper just to pay per service. We may someday see catastrofic health insurance - we are already seeing high-deductible insurance.

I have mixed emotions and thoughts - if you start another thread I'll share them - this is far enough on this tangent I care to go now.

Just spend more money on nukes and threaten the stupid terrorist bastards. Although, I don't pay taxes so...:(

i speak of income taxes, not prices, to eliminate deficit, not raise revenue.

where are you getting prices and revenue??? :confused:

You really don't understand what a cost is - do you. Nor do you seem to understand how cost relates to price and tax, or the relationship between revenues and deficits. It is quote impossible to discuss economic and tax policy with someone who does not grasp these concepts.

Am I incorrect in these observations?

Just spend more money on nukes and threaten the stupid terrorist bastards. Although, I don't pay taxes so...:(

This is about the US - not Iran. :)

That's the way insurance works--you pay for stuff you'll never use, and others pay for stuff they never use and the risk gets spread around evenly. If you suffer a catastrophic illness that only one in 100,000 suffers, the other 99,999 in the pool have covered you instead of you covering yourself. If only women of childbearing age were paying for maternity coverage, the premiums would be so high that no one would be able to afford them. What keeps the costs lower is that the company is spreading the risk around.
But every other insurer has different options to offer. I don't have to buy rental car coverage on my auto policy. I don't need to buy flood insurance on my homeowners policy.

Plus, high risk insureds pay more than low risks. I pay less because I have never had an auto accident or a traffic ticket. It should work the same for health insurance. I'm healthy and I should pay less that than the overweight, diabetic that has had two heart attacks. I don't.

-- Take that karma police.

The military should get 5% maximum. There isn't going to be a big war for decades...what does the US need half a million or more soldiers with their tanks, planes and guns stationed in the mainland US for?

(snip) There isn't going to be a big war for decades...
Are you planning something?

This is about the US - not Iran. :)

But isn't, according to Bush, the defense of the country dependent on putting down enemy forces? So it truly is related.

But isn't, according to Bush, the defense of the country dependent on putting down enemy forces? So it truly is related.


I was joking - apparently not very well - about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Are you planning something?
Me?..ahem...no, of...well...I wouldn't say...

That's really not that important right now, is it?

*runs off*

But every other insurer has different options to offer. I don't have to buy rental car coverage on my auto policy. I don't need to buy flood insurance on my homeowners policy.

Plus, high risk insureds pay more than low risks. I pay less because I have never had an auto accident or a traffic ticket. It should work the same for health insurance. I'm healthy and I should pay less that than the overweight, diabetic that has had two heart attacks. I don't.

-- Take that karma police.And in the individual market, high risk health insureds pay a premium as well, or they get excluded because of pre-existing conditions. But what you're describing to me sounds like you're part of a group plan, and the idea behind a group plan is that everyone pays for the whole package, so that the risk is spread out over the group. The larger the group, ideally, the lower the cost to all, because the healthy aren't going to use the services as much as the sick are. Problem is, if the healthy opt out, expenses go up and insurance becomes prohibitively expensive. The only way the system works is if there are large groups contributing and spreading the risk which is why a single payer system works--it's the largest possible group. Plus you get the benefit of reduced administrative costs.

I was joking - apparently not very well - about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Sorry...I take everything literally.

I would support cutting the Defense budget if the cut went to increase the budget of NASA. Just imagine what NASA could do with even 1/4 of the Defense Budget.

The defense budget could use a healthy trimming. I'd especially like to see the standing ground forces cut to the bone, with a greater emphasis placed on Reserve units. Might encourage the government to quit putting us places overseas that we have no business in, too (Note, I didn't mention a specific incidence; that's not what this thread is about).

I would support cutting the Defense budget if the cut went to increase the budget of NASA. Just imagine what NASA could do with even 1/4 of the Defense Budget.

Piss it all away on the development of manned spacecraft?

Perfect use of my tax money.

You could probably do with a whole lot less officers in the US Military (what military wouldn’t benefit from less officers?). I think that there should be a focus of spending towards need. Spend 90% of your budget on what you do 90% of the time and not 10% of the budget on what you need 90% of the time. I think there needs to be more focus and accountability (like stopping Generals from pimping out the military’s budget to corporations that they are getting a kick back from). The problem of the military turning officers into corporate officers is one of the biggest things that needs to be overcome to salvage current US military thinking.

Piss it all away on the development of manned spacecraft?

Perfect use of my tax money.

It is sad to see that people still don't understand that we have to get off this rock sometime in order to ensure the survival of humanity.

Stop spending as much, if only to teach them to spend smarter. Not that I want to underfund them, of course...

The military should get 5% maximum. There isn't going to be a big war for decades...what does the US need half a million or more soldiers with their tanks, planes and guns stationed in the mainland US for?

To make sure that the big war DOESN'T happen. The US learned it's lesson from disarming after WW1 & WW2.
Korea was a REAL problem... we were mostly using WW2 surplus gear, and training was initially low. Before 1940, Denmark had a larger army than the US. It really took until 1943 for the US Army to get into "fighting shape".

5% (or less) may work for small countries, but not for the last standing superpower.

To make sure that the big war DOESN'T happen. The US learned it's lesson from disarming after WW1 & WW2.
Korea was a REAL problem... we were mostly using WW2 surplus gear, and training was initially low. Before 1940, Denmark had a larger army than the US. It really took until 1943 for the US Army to get into "fighting shape".

5% (or less) may work for small countries, but not for the last standing superpower.

Canada only spends 1-1.5%, we should serve as a lesson to nations. That you should spend much more then that.

Canada only spends 1-1.5%, we should serve as a lesson to nations.
Yeah, live next to a nuclear armed super-power with an interventionist streak and a paranoid fear of dominoes.

Yeah, live next to a nuclear armed super-power with an interventionist streak and a paranoid fear of dominoes.

Yep, nice quote changing. Ass.

Defense spending AND social spending should be limited proportionally to 1970 levels.

In 1970, military spending consumed 8.1% of GDP, more than twice the proportion consumed by the major entitlements (3.9%). Today, defense spending is a mere 3.7% of GDP while the Big Three entitlements absorb fully 8.3% of economy.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060212/news_lz1e12franc.html


(Numbers are from the 2006 FY Budget, table S-10, found on page 362.)

Today, the US military gets just shy of $424 billion (Dept of Defense).
(Obviously, this does not count the "emergency funds" for Iraq & Afghanistan. However, we're talking defense spending, NOT foreign policy spending in this exercise.)

Meanwhile, Social Security gets $540 billion. Medicare gets $340 billion, Medicaid gets $199 billion, for a total of $1079 Billion.

...Then again, after adjusting for inflation, US per capita GDP has also doubled since 1970. I'm not so sure I want to go back. :D

It's to low. The defense budget should be at least twice of what it is now.


How much is it anyway?

EDIT: Never mind. I didn't see the post right above mine.

the military should get 90% of the budget oorah!

Why UNA. I never thought you were a North Korean.

To make sure that the big war DOESN'T happen. The US learned it's lesson from disarming after WW1 & WW2.
Korea was a REAL problem... we were mostly using WW2 surplus gear, and training was initially low. Before 1940, Denmark had a larger army than the US. It really took until 1943 for the US Army to get into "fighting shape".

5% (or less) may work for small countries, but not for the last standing superpower.
I remember from somewhere it was roughly 600,000 troops before 1940. Something tells me that Denmark didn't have that many troops under arms.

Yep, nice quote changing. Ass.
I was just pointing out that Canada doesn't need to spend a lot on defense; it's like being Lennie Small's little brother.

I was just pointing out that Canada doesn't need to spend a lot on defense; it's like being Lennie Small's little brother.

Yep, because history teaches us that those that are unprepared always win.

Yep, because history teaches us that those that are unprepared always win.
Prepared for what? If someone messes with Canada, the US will step up and cover them. If the US decides to mess with Canada, well Canada is just fucked whatever they do.

I remember from somewhere it was roughly 600,000 troops before 1940. Something tells me that Denmark didn't have that many troops under arms.

Not quite...
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/brief/overview.htm

The National Defense Act of 1920 allowed an Army of 280,000, the largest in peacetime history, but until 1939 Congress never appropriated funds to pay for much more than half of that strength. (or, 140,000).

...however, the number actually IN the military was far under even that! :eek:

see that river of red ink, flowing from DC?

that's what i'm talking about.

christ, here in NJ, we're striving for a balanced budget so we can work from there.

show me a republican who wants to raise taxes and i'll show you a picture of me hanging myself :D
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (http://www.nndb.com/people/353/000087092/mitch-daniels.jpg)

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16547

Not quite...
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/brief/overview.htm

The National Defense Act of 1920 allowed an Army of 280,000, the largest in peacetime history, but until 1939 Congress never appropriated funds to pay for much more than half of that strength. (or, 140,000).

...however, the number actually IN the military was far under even that! :eek:
And the Danish army was a wooping total of 14500 in 1940.

And the Danish army was wooping total of 14500 in 1940.

Alright, so the US was ~130,000 larger, but Denmark didn't have to garrison Hawaii, Alaska, the Philipeans, Cuba, or Panama. :)

The real issue with US defense spending is actually personel and salaries.

It's around 50% of the DOD budget.

As to who ever said that the US military doesn't need the people back in the CONUS two things:

Who trains the new guys?

And, MANY CAREER MILITARY HAVE FAMILIES, and would like to see them, not spend all the time deployed.

Many people here seem to agree that defense spending under the Bush administration is too high and should be reduced. Other people think the defense budget is not yet high enough. Participate in this poll and post your opinion here!

The budget should be higher. It should also be completely overhauled. Military personnel are not paid nearly enough - we should have the best and the brightest banging on the door. Also, far too much is being spent on systems designed to refight the Cold War (or WWII) as opposed to being spent on equipment and appropriate training and organisation for the post-cold war world's security problems.

It is sad to see that people still don't understand that we have to get off this rock sometime in order to ensure the survival of humanity.

In 5 billion years...

Space exploration is a colossal waste of money.

In 5 billion years...

Space exploration is a colossal waste of money.
In a considerably shorter period if we don't stop shitting where we eat, environmentally speaking.

In 5 billion years...

Space exploration is a colossal waste of money.

It was one of the best investments a nation can make, I'm sorry that you do not see the light.

In a considerably shorter period if we don't stop shitting where we eat, environmentally speaking.

Gee, if we invested the billions in environmental clean up and alternative energy, instead of huge ass rockets to take a dozen men to a ball of worthless rock, our world might not be as fucked up as it is right now!

(wow, that was one long run-on sentence)

It was one of the best investments a nation can make, I'm sorry that you do not see the light.

What have we gotten from the moon, which we spent billions on?

Nothing.

What have we gotten from the multimillion dollar Mars probes?

Nothing.

What will come out of the space program.

Nothing.

What have we gotten from the moon, which we spent billions on?

Nothing.

What have we gotten from the multimillion dollar Mars probes?

Nothing.

What will come out of the space program.

Nothing.

Your ignorance is disgusting.

Your ignorance is disgusting.

Then Enlighten me.

Then Enlighten me.
If you add up the profits made from technological advancements made simply to get humans into space--not counting the stuff we've discovered as a result of being there, especially in the world of medical technology--then NASA has paid for itself hundreds of times over.

If you add up the profits made from technological advancements made simply to get humans into space--not counting the stuff we've discovered as a result of being there, especially in the world of medical technology--then NASA has paid for itself hundreds of times over.

Assuming that the same advances could not have been made on earth for substantially less?

what proportion of the budget did it get in 1970?

Then Enlighten me.

It is a very small % of the overall budget, too small many would say, and the gains far outweigh the costs. Also, a majority (71%) support space exploration.

For detailed answers, seek Google.

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1997/contents.html

It is a very small % of the overall budget, too small many would say, and the gains far outweigh the costs. Also, a majority (71%) support space exploration.

For detailed answers, seek Google.

And what are these "Gains" you speak of? Death? Pollution? Waste?

Assuming that the same advances could not have been made on earth for substantially less?Innovation is generally a result of pressure, and the pressure that caused that innovation was the need to miniaturize the hell out of everything they could because it had to get up into space. That pressure didn't exist on earth.

But even that's not relevant to the question you originally asked. You asked what we'd gotten--we got technological innovation that we might not have gotten otherwise because there wouldn't have been the impetus to innovate.

Innovation is generally a result of pressure, and the pressure that caused that innovation was the need to miniaturize the hell out of everything they could because it had to get up into space. That pressure didn't exist on earth.

But even that's not relevant to the question you originally asked. You asked what we'd gotten--we got technological innovation that we might not have gotten otherwise because there wouldn't have been the impetus to innovate.

Fair enough.

Now, was this "innovation" worth the cost in money and human lives?

IMO, the answer is no.

Fair enough.

Now, was this "innovation" worth the cost in money and human lives?

IMO, the answer is no.
Considering the number of lives that have been saved as a result of medical advances and the number of people whose quality of life has gone up immeasurably as a result of that innovation, I would have to respectfully disagree.

Considering the number of lives that have been saved as a result of medical advances and the number of people whose quality of life has gone up immeasurably as a result of that innovation, I would have to respectfully disagree.

Medical advances that would have probably been made on earth without the trillion dollar price tag.

Medical advances that would have probably been made on earth without the trillion dollar price tag.
Probably not. We're talking about devices that monitor practically every body function from extraordinary distances, about procedures that were developed based on data gathered from astronauts while they were in space. If I remember correctly, angioplasty is an example of a medical procedure that came from the space program. And there's no way to put a value on the pure scientific data we've gathered from the program.

The only other government program to contribute that much to medical knowledge, if I had to guess, would be the Department of Defense in their work to keep soldiers alive. You want to compare the number of lives lost between those two programs, be my guest.

Medical advances that would have probably been made on earth without the trillion dollar price tag.

Did you not read my post where I said that Space Exploration makes up a tiny % of the budget?

And what are these "Gains" you speak of? Death? Pollution? Waste?

It is impossible to make you see the light.

What have we gotten from the moon, which we spent billions on?

Nothing.

What have we gotten from the multimillion dollar Mars probes?

Nothing.

What will come out of the space program.

Nothing.

A lot of civilian technology comes from military and NASA declassified technology. All of the technology that has been introduced into camera lenses came from declassified spookware. A lot of the special new cool materials we take for granted came from the space program. They are constantly working to create new materials in space and conduct lab work that will help us in the future, although with the lack of funding that NASA currently enjoys the US will soon be waiting to buy the results from Chinese and Japanese space programs instead.

A lot of politicians find it hard to support space exploration because their constituents don’t live on Moon or Mars. What they fail to understand is that without a future in exploration of space to work towards, your people lose sight of any vision short of creating better war machines in the high tech sector. Cutting funding to NASA is going creating an internal brain drain in your own nation, because there is now less to aspire to.

The Bruce

I'm a pacifist, but I'm also a big fan of large military budgets. While they may seem to be naturally contradictory, they actually go hand in hand. A well funded, well equiped, well trained, well motivated, and well controlled military is one that is most likely to prevent wars.

Better technology allows us to slowly but surely prevent innocents from dying in the case of combat. Moreso, if you're sufficiently far ahead, others are less likely to attack you.

Better tech also transfers into the medical and civilian fields, which is good for everyone.

Most importantly, all the money that goes to equiptment for the military goes to the private sector, where it motivates the economy to keep moving.

I have edited the original post - please take a look if you have not already.

I consider the military and social spending to be quite different things.

Rather than just interchangable budget items, they serve very different purposes.

We know of the purpose of military spending, and I made my decision regarding the poll accordingly.

If I was to decide about social spending, I'd need more details. And yesterday on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer (what an excellent show - I'm glad I get that here in Oz) they were talking about a new report that's come out about how much American infrastructure sucks. So maybe that needs some more money.

What have we gotten from the moon, which we spent billions on?

Nothing.

What have we gotten from the multimillion dollar Mars probes?

Nothing.

What will come out of the space program.

Nothing.

I'm sure others have answered, but here's a specific page for reference:

THE BEST OF NASA'S SPINOFFS
http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/spinoff.html

A lot of civilian technology comes from military and NASA declassified technology. All of the technology that has been introduced into camera lenses came from declassified spookware. A lot of the special new cool materials we take for granted came from the space program. They are constantly working to create new materials in space and conduct lab work that will help us in the future, although with the lack of funding that NASA currently enjoys the US will soon be waiting to buy the results from Chinese and Japanese space programs instead.

Quite so. But it is quaint that NASA is sometimes willing to spend millions to re-invent the wheel. Take for example the contest to NASA wrote out for the best pen that would work under zero-gravity conditions. Well, this provived the world with a nifty invention called the 'ball-point' pen, but none of these NASA brainiacs thought of the simple wood and graphite pencil. This works just as well in zero-gravity conditions and would have saved them months of developing and millions of dollars.

Just stating fact. Also, ball points make smudges.

A lot of politicians find it hard to support space exploration because their constituents don’t live on Moon or Mars. What they fail to understand is that without a future in exploration of space to work towards, your people lose sight of any vision short of creating better war machines in the high tech sector. Cutting funding to NASA is going creating an internal brain drain in your own nation, because there is now less to aspire to.

O RLY? (http://www.orlyowls.com/owls/pages/orly.htm)Like there is no other place than NASA where all the geeks, nerds, whizkids, brainiacs, mathematicians, physicists and who know what's could go. What about the US army?

I have edited the original post - please take a look if you have not already.

Yes. Thank you Bozzy for demonstrating once again that nothing you post should be taken at face value. It is almost always deceptive.

Yes. Thank you Bozzy for demonstrating once again that nothing you post should be taken at face value. It is almost always deceptive.

I didn't even bother to read the first 5 pages anyway :p

Deceptive? Looks to me like he was trying to make a quality point, and made it he did.

Quite so. But it is quaint that NASA is sometimes willing to spend millions to re-invent the wheel. Take for example the contest to NASA wrote out for the best pen that would work under zero-gravity conditions. Well, this provived the world with a nifty invention called the 'ball-point' pen, but none of these NASA brainiacs thought of the simple wood and graphite pencil. This works just as well in zero-gravity conditions and would have saved them months of developing and millions of dollars.

Just stating fact. Also, ball points make smudges.

That is actually a myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_pen

Deceptive? Looks to me like he was trying to make a quality point, and made it he did.


10 points to Griffindor for exemplary execution of academic competence!


Yes. Thank you Bozzy for demonstrating once again that nothing you post should be taken at face value. It is almost always deceptive.

10 points from Slytherin for poor sportsmanship.

I know that's an article of faith among conservatives, but could you provide some backup for that, like some actual facts and figures? I'm having trouble finding a chart that details that statement, and my memory tells me that it's incorrect, that revenue actually fell the first year after Reagan's tax-slashing episode in 1981, and that he agreed to tax increases in 1982 to make up for it.

I totally missed this post before and found it while looking for something else - do you still want an answer or did you find it yourself? It is not hard to find...

found this...
http://winke.com/wts/wts./histusrt.htm

looking for more..

edit - no respose - oh well. I'm going to contine looking anyway - it is more dificult to find historical income tax revenues than I expected.

Assuming that the same advances could not have been made on earth for substantially less?

You mean, like, weather satelites? Communication satelites? Advanced plastics? Modern athletic shoes? Microprocessors? Child safety seats? I could go on, but your ignorance has been adequatly exposed...

I haven't even discussed the things which WILL come out of the space program within the next 15 years - not the least of which is a source for cheap and clean fuel fo fusion (not fission) powerplants.

You mean, like, weather satelites? Communication satelites? Advanced plastics? Modern athletic shoes? Microprocessors? Child safety seats? I could go on, but your ignorance has ben adequatly exposed...

Gravedigging your own dead thread. How sad.

Gravedigging your own dead thread. How sad.

Certainly you have something better to do that follow me around and bait me? Go take a pill - or even better - a handfull of em. If you don't think I post often enough to match your schedule that's your tough shit. I get more important things to do that post here every day. Count yourself lucky I post here as often as I do - most often a couple times a week. If you want more - subscribe to my newsletter.

My vote: The military recieves 0% of the budget, and any money once spent on it is allocated to social programs and treating AIDS in Africa.

You guys who talk about the figures 1970 are missing one massive point, let me educate you a bit:
In 1970 military spending made up something like 8% of the budget according to you people, am I correct?
And now in the year 2006 it makes up something like 4%, yes?
But guess what, we still spend way too much on military. Now you are probably thinking, "But that doesn't make any sense! We are actually spending much less of the GDP on military!"
Well let me clue you in on what appears to be the best kept secret of the Bush adminstration. THE COLD WAR ENDED. Woohoo, we won! Guess what, this may shock you but that became official in 1991 when the USSR dissolved itself. In 1970 we were still in the Cold War. A quick history lesson for you. The Cold War spawned what is known as an "arms race", in which nations spend massive amounts on their military keeping it in tiptop shape and ready to fight the other major powers of the world. Great amounts of money are used to make everyone knows that you are ready for a massive war. Mkay, now the Cold War has ended. But guess what, we're still using an arms race mentality with the military. And here's the kicker, NO ONE IS RACING US. We are doing this unilaterally (hmm, kinda like, well almost everything we do) and no one is opposing us in this massive arms race we are carrying out. And yet, we act like we need to spend more on the military. Is anybody fuckin' home? What nation are we so frightened is going to attack us that we need to be in this arms race? How are they competing with us? Are they just making their military spending numbers up? Who is building their military at such a rapid pace that warrants this resurgence of an arms race? Here's a stat for you pro-military spending people to look up. In 1970 did the United States military budget make up ~49% of the entire world's military budget? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say, ummm, no chance in hell.

I'm a pacifist, but I'm also a big fan of large military budgets. While they may seem to be naturally contradictory, they actually go hand in hand. A well funded, well equiped, well trained, well motivated, and well controlled military is one that is most likely to prevent wars.
What nations were you worried about? The only people who would attack us in this day and age are terrorists groups. And something tells me they don't give a fuck how much money we pissed away on the military.

1. Bigger militaries may not deter terrorists, but they sure seem to be more effective at killing the little buggers than ones that have to fight the terrorists on their own level--AK-47's and rocks.

2. Soldiers should know how to fight and get people ready to fight. Everything else about the military should be outsourced, the same in the prison, insurance....even to a LIMITED (before too many people start screaming at me...) extent the High Schools.

Back on topic. It is a well-accepted (by both liberal and conservative economists) that the private sector is MUCH more efficient (if less morally correct at times) than the government when it comes to doing just about anything. If the government really wants the military to be competitive, outsourcing things to companies like Halliburton, as repugnant as it may sound, is the way to keep the costs down. Do you really want your hard-earned tax money going for a permanent federal bureaucracy regarding the Army's LAUNDRY DETERGENT? Better to let private companies BID to provide those services (the one problem with Halliburton contracts is that most of them are no-bid, and thus over-priced.)

3. The military, ESPECIALLY the navy (okay, maybe I'm prejudiced 'cause I'm a Naval ROTC cadet...) is vital in protecting American trade interests world wide. All trade negotiating is backed up by force. Whenever America goes to the bargaining table, there is the tacit assumption that if you (other country) don't deal fairly with us, we'll bomb your capitol back to the stone age for cheating us. Granted this doesn't happen much, but the implied threat that the mere presence of our armed forces makes gives us the upper hand in negotiations across the globe.

4. You guys are missing something. Since 1970, the government's got a lot sneakier about how budgets are put together. Yes, military spending is lower today, but that goes without counting all sorts of MILITARY appropriations hidden away in the budget in other categories (like NASA). The Homeland Security Department has huge amounts of appropriations tucked into its budget that are PURELY military. Ditto the State Dept. The actual numbers spent on the military are much higher than they seem at first look.

4. You guys are missing something. Since 1970, the government's got a lot sneakier about how budgets are put together. Yes, military spending is lower today, but that goes without counting all sorts of MILITARY appropriations hidden away in the budget in other categories (like NASA). The Homeland Security Department has huge amounts of appropriations tucked into its budget that are PURELY military. Ditto the State Dept. The actual numbers spent on the military are much higher than they seem at first look.

That's a great point and to add onto that, we also tend to forget the billions of dollars that go into "foreign aid", much of which is military foreign aid, in which we give weapons to our allies. It's like giving your best friend a bunch of your stuff, then he uses it to do the same things that you used it for already, and plus you get to say you gave a generous donation to someone.

'defense' is one hell of a euphamism for being the world's biggest bully. i didn't see an option that would lower military budgeting priorities sufficiently to be sane in the poll.

=^^=
.../\...

i didn't see an option that would lower military budgeting priorities sufficiently to be sane in the poll.

That's because there isn't one. Apparently the OP decided to be an elitist and only made poll options that supported his point of view.

Yes, the US should adjust 'defense' spending levels, by significantly decreasing them. Social Security can stay about the same as it is now, however the minimum wage should be increased to a living wage.

Yes, the US should adjust 'defense' spending levels, by significantly decreasing them. Social Security can stay about the same as it is now, however the minimum wage should be increased to a living wage.

In 1970, military spending consumed 8.1% of GDP, more than twice the proportion consumed by the major entitlements (3.9%). Today, defense spending is a mere 3.7% of GDP while the Big Three entitlements absorb fully 8.3% of economy.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10701401&postcount=51

...it already has.

As for minimum wage: it IS a living wage. However, it isn't a good living wage. That's why it is the minimum. QED. Even if you made the MW (say) $15/hour next week, the economy would adjust to make it marginal within a year or three.

Outsider Non Realist Veiw:
The whole world needs to come to a consensus. We need to find peace and constructively unite to provide for all of society as a united family of humanity.

The world spends too much on destructive capacity, and the US with it's tremendious economy is paving the way to that.

It is not right I have to live in a war where human takes human life, and where we cannot find a universal peace. The only other option is to think a perfect world exists where humans seek to cease the existance of another.

It is most likely my sentiment right now but the world sickens me. The media or if the media is real, is twisted and disgusting. The people that have the choice choose to destroy the world.

Stop now, just stop.

The crux, do we bear in mind our own destruction to stop destruction.

Kill me now and save me the time witnessing the hypocracy of the destruction of a good life, a good planet, and any sense of absolute ideal and virtue.

So I get closer to death, either the world is false or it ends.

I personally think that militaries shoud be privately funded, as essentially they are. The first step of responsible government is to stop extoring resources from the public, and start taking donations.

In 1970, military spending consumed 8.1% of GDP, more than twice the proportion consumed by the major entitlements (3.9%). Today, defense spending is a mere 3.7% of GDP while the Big Three entitlements absorb fully 8.3% of economy.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10701401&postcount=51

...it already has.I'm aware that military spending has gone down relative to 1970, I'm saying it should go down even further.

As for minimum wage: it IS a living wage. However, it isn't a good living wage. That's why it is the minimum. QED. Even if you made the MW (say) $15/hour next week, the economy would adjust to make it marginal within a year or three.Whether or not the minimum wage is a living wage for an individual, when people talk of living wages, they usually talk about living wages for a family of four, which the minimum wage is not.

I'm aware that military spending has gone down relative to 1970, I'm saying it should go down even further.

Whether or not the minimum wage is a living wage for an individual, when people talk of living wages, they usually talk about living wages for a family of four, which the minimum wage is not.

Oh. :eek:

That's not a minimum wage role. You cannot assume everyone is in a family of four. Otherwise, you're saying that any given 18 year old packing boxes in a warehouse should earn enough to support a family of four. Clearly, that's impossible given skillset, experience, etc.

That's not a minimum wage role. You cannot assume everyone is in a family of four. Otherwise, you're saying that any given 18 year old packing boxes in a warehouse should earn enough to support a family of four. Clearly, that's impossible given skillset, experience, etc.Not really, with redistribution of income, and perhaps the institution of a maximum wage, it's perfectly possible.

Not really, with redistribution of income, and perhaps the institution of a maximum wage, it's perfectly possible.

The redistrubtion of income is inherently evil, as is the concept of a maximum wage.
Who is anybody else to say what the most something is worth? By that logic, I could demand you sell me your car for three seashells and an old accordion.

The redistrubtion of income is inherently evil, as is the concept of a maximum wage. I don't know about evil, I mean you're welcome to argue that a country shouldn't do so, but a country has the right to do so.
Who is anybody else to say what the most something is worth? By that logic, I could demand you sell me your car for three seashells and an old accordion.Sure. <Hands you a Matchbox car.> <Takes seashells and accordion and runs.> :)