|
Grex > Agora41 > #17: How much did the U.S. military spend while you were reading this sentence? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
oval
|
|
How much did the U.S. military spend while you were reading this sentence?
| 
Mar 22 20:16 UTC 2002 |
456,658,888,888
The above figure represents U.S. military spending since the start of Fiscal
Year 2001. Every minute the United States spends another $589, 802 on the
military, 51.3% of the descretionary federal budget.
http://www.cdi.org/msc/clock.html
|
| 199 responses total. |
raven
|
|
response 1 of 199:
|
Mar 22 23:00 UTC 2002 |
bravo I also saw this over at antiwar.com This is from the same people
that piss and moan about funding the arts or NPR. Because killing to
protect oil is much more important than having a lasting cultural legacy,
right?
|
pgreen
|
|
response 2 of 199:
|
Mar 22 23:19 UTC 2002 |
NPR blows. PACIFICA RADIO ROCKS.
|
jazz
|
|
response 3 of 199:
|
Mar 22 23:38 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jazz
|
|
response 4 of 199:
|
Mar 22 23:43 UTC 2002 |
Sorry, that wasn't coherent at all.
I'm really against the way we've been using our military these days,
too, but that's a seperate question from how much we're spending on the
military, unless you're arguing that a military isn't necessary.
That's what I meant to say. Honest. :)
|
xix
|
|
response 5 of 199:
|
Mar 22 23:49 UTC 2002 |
I think those questions are seperate, but they are related to each other.
For example, I think that how much one spends on a things affects how
they will use those things, and in Western thinking it will also affect
the intergrity of those who are using it.
|
russ
|
|
response 6 of 199:
|
Mar 23 04:07 UTC 2002 |
Ummm... isn't defending the USA what the government is SUPPOSED
to do? Why is that function "discretionary"?
Damn FDR and his "entitlements". They're going to destroy this country.
|
raven
|
|
response 7 of 199:
|
Mar 23 05:24 UTC 2002 |
Russ real Libertarians are opposed to both social welfare programs and
money spent on U.S. interventionism see lewrockwell.com or antiwar.com
(Libertarian Institute) for more info.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 8 of 199:
|
Mar 23 05:28 UTC 2002 |
51% of what?! Look at a pie chart of the US budget some time. Look
at how the total money spent is allocated. Where does that
money go? Where does the US rank in % of GDP per year for military?
Behind such military powers as Yemen, Turkey, Syria, Swaziland,
Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia, Rwanda, Qatar, Pakistan, Oman, Nigeria
New Caledonia, Morroco, Malta, Libya, Lebanon, Laos, Jordon, and
Zimbabwe to name a few.
re#6: Indeed.
|
tsty
|
|
response 9 of 199:
|
Mar 23 06:31 UTC 2002 |
not all the budget is discretionary spending (see #6, 2nd graph).
of the part that IS discretionary, defense (not a discretionary FUNCTION)
accounts for 51.3%
funding for the arts is also discretionary.
since discretion is teh better part of valor, 51.3% is ok by me.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 10 of 199:
|
Mar 23 06:39 UTC 2002 |
Judging from the fact that USMILITARY soldiers often qualify for WIC,
Foodstamps, and various other 'welfare' programs I think its fair to
suggest for sure that the US doesn't spend enough to pay it's warriors a
'living wage'.
|
raven
|
|
response 11 of 199:
|
Mar 23 08:17 UTC 2002 |
I think Switzerland gets it about right. Mandatory small weapons training
for everyone (at age 18?) a riffle in every home and stay neutral in
international conflicts. Why does the U.S. have to have soldiers
stationed in over 100 countries? All it does is inflame hatred against
the U.S. as the arrogant cop of the world. Not only that it's a big waste
of hundreds of billions of dollars. I thought conservatives were supposed
to be all about small government and fiscal responsability. Now Bush is
asking to expand the debt ceiling and the surplus has gone poof to support
military boon doogles like missle defense that aren't even related to
terrorism.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 12 of 199:
|
Mar 23 08:33 UTC 2002 |
Uh. Buy a seat on the clue bus, dude. You are so pre-9/11.
|
md
|
|
response 13 of 199:
|
Mar 23 13:55 UTC 2002 |
The phrase is, "so 9/10."
|
jazz
|
|
response 14 of 199:
|
Mar 23 14:45 UTC 2002 |
No, having soldiers stationed in such far-flung countries does a lot
more than just inflame anti-American sentiment. It ensures the profits of
major campaign contributors. Basically, we're an old-fashioned imperial
power, and therefore we don't fight our own battles anymore, at least not on
our own soil. That's why 9/11 was so horrid. Get with the program.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 15 of 199:
|
Mar 23 15:41 UTC 2002 |
Switzerland has applied to join NATO. I guess they decided their riffles
(sic) were inadequate.
|
russ
|
|
response 16 of 199:
|
Mar 23 16:39 UTC 2002 |
Re #11: Yeah, the world would have been such a great place if the
USA had been neutral (like the Suisse) since... oh... 1941. Just
think, Europe would be ruled by Nazis and Asia would be a battleground
between the Japanese and communists. The people now complaining about
what the USA is doing would be in prison camps, or dead. (Hey, that
would be an improvement.)
The USA is stuck, because having bailed Europe out of their jam
Europe still expects the USA to keep doing it, as proven by their
complete inability to act even on pressing matters in their own back
yard such as Bosnia. (Then their "intelligentsia" condemns the USA
for it, and some USA nitwits even take their blatherings seriously.)
|
tsty
|
|
response 17 of 199:
|
Mar 23 16:49 UTC 2002 |
switzerland has voted approval for joining nato - one huluva fight
in that country over the changes no necessary. i don't know the
change-details, however.
|
jazz
|
|
response 18 of 199:
|
Mar 23 18:41 UTC 2002 |
I don't see that much of a connection between our current involvement
in world affairs and the reluctant prodding out of isolationism that marked
our entry into World War II. Yes, we did step in, but we stepped in very late
in the game and after much internal discussion.
|
raven
|
|
response 19 of 199:
|
Mar 23 18:41 UTC 2002 |
re # 12 Perhaps you are the one who needs the clue, the Swiss have zero,
terrorism problem, couldn't be because they don't have military bases
in Saudi Arabia and aren't blatant supporters of Israel, right or wrong,
eh?
The Nazis would have lost have lost anyway attacking Russia. All
meglomaniacs, seem to get it in their head they can conquer Russia. Thus
Bush's incursion into Georgia makes me a little nervous.
|
oval
|
|
response 20 of 199:
|
Mar 23 21:36 UTC 2002 |
it would be intersting to take at look at the commonalities between the
countries that experience terrorist attacks. [hint: it ain't freedom]
i would also like to reccomend a book: "Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship
of Reason in the West" by John Ralston Saul
they have it used at amazon - or you can just read the reviews.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679748199/103-5475193-0583802
|
gull
|
|
response 21 of 199:
|
Mar 24 01:42 UTC 2002 |
Re #10: There'd be enough to pay them a decent wage if we weren't
wasting money on keeping open bases that the military no longer wants,
and building weapons they've said they're not interested in. The
problem is the military has become a method for diverting money into
specific Congressional districts.
Also, IIRC, the soldiers who were on food stamps generally had chosen
to have more children than their salaries could support. I don't have
a lot of sympathy for that.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 22 of 199:
|
Mar 24 03:30 UTC 2002 |
Yeah, like two kids. That's total uncalled for, isn't? Twenty-somethings
should be satisfied with one. Or maybe they shouldn't get married at all.
When I left the Marines, I was making $1,360 a month. Plus housing. Since I
was married, I had permission to dine separately, which meant another $5 a
day, roughly. (Sorry, I don't feel like going into the basement to dig out
my Leave and Earning Statements. I know where they are, I just don't feel
like pulling them up right now.) I was a Staff Sergeant with eleven years
service. Back then, Generals were capped at around $6,000 per month.
So I had to go downstairs for something else. Here's the tabulation for
January, 1987;
Entitlements
Basic Pay: 1,311.90
BAQ Wife/child: 358.50
Pro/Sep Rations: 166.47
COLA w/dependents: 219.48 Location JA027 Dep 1 IND
Leave Rations: 32.22 Start 870119 stop 870124
Total: 2,088.57
Deductions
Dependents Allot 100.00
Bond Allotment 6.25
Insurance Allot 50.00
Savings Allot 32.65
Savings Allot 254.00
Charity Allot 5.00
FITW (Fed Tax) 139.79
FICA (SocSec Tax) 93.80
SGLI 4.00
Govt Qtrs w/Depn 358.50
Pro/Sep Rations 32.22 Start 870119 stop 870124
Total: 1,076.21
Note that the BAQ (Basic Allowance for Quarters) and Leave Rations were
given with one hand and taken away with the other. The Cost of Living
Allowance was based on the cost of living in Japan.
Anyone interested can find the current rates at
http://www.dfas.mil/money/milpay/pay/
Generals are currently limited to $11,516.70 per month.
I find the comment about stations in "more than 100 countries" a little
hard to credit. Sure, we have embassies, with guards and military attaches,
in most of the world's nations. And there's probably a Consular office in
most of the rest. Still. One hundred countries?
The Swiss don't have terrorist actions because the only thing worth hitting
is the banks, which are more useful to terrorists if they DON'T break Swiss
laws.
|
gull
|
|
response 23 of 199:
|
Mar 24 04:35 UTC 2002 |
Re #22: I just find it interesting that the same people who complain
about soldiers with kids being on food stamps will turn around and
argue against both welfare and minimum wage increases. To me that
seems inconsistant.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 24 of 199:
|
Mar 24 05:24 UTC 2002 |
re#23: How is it inconsistant to think the military should be paid
better, welfare needs reform, and minimum wage increases cause
unemployment?
|