|
|
|
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.
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?
NPR blows. PACIFICA RADIO ROCKS.
This response has been erased.
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
Uh. Buy a seat on the clue bus, dude. You are so pre-9/11.
The phrase is, "so 9/10."
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.
Switzerland has applied to join NATO. I guess they decided their riffles (sic) were inadequate.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
re#23: How is it inconsistant to think the military should be paid better, welfare needs reform, and minimum wage increases cause unemployment?
re #22 "On any given day, The Army has nearly 125,000 soldiers and 15,000 U.S. civilians forward-stationed in over 100 countries around the world." http://www.army.mil/aps/01/page6.htm Do you want fries with your words you are eating? Short blurb on this from the Libertarians 1997: http://archive.lp.org/rel/19970725-military.html Is this sort of thing a constructive way to spend our money? I think not.
In 2 years the deployment quintupled into 33% more countries?? US Army News release: "March 8, 1999 U. S. ARMY WEEKLY OPERATIONS UPDATE The U.S. Army currently has 29,680 soldiers deployed in 73 countries."
Re #24: I'm suggesting that it's inconsistant to argue that soldiers should get pay raises so they don't have to worry about living within their means, but people working at McDonalds shouldn't.
From a free market point of view, the military should only increase soldier's wages if they have a shortage of soldiers. If they still have folks willing to do the job at less than a "living wage" it would be a waste of tax payer money to pay them more. It is possible that bdh is concerned not so much with the soldier's welfare but with the type of person who becomes a soldier. If the wages are increased, more people will want to become soldiers which would mean that the military could be more picky about whom they accept. I think military jobs are more demanding than McDonald's jobs (but I could be wrong, I've never been in the military but my experience with McDonalds is that pretty much any moron can do that job) Personally, I dont have a big problem with raising soldier's wages if that meant that less soldiers were needed. A reduction in military spending doesnt necessarily mean a reduction in military wages. Is it possible that our country has more military than we really need?
No, I'm not eating my words. And I suspect you won't eat yours, either.
You wrote:
Why does the U.S. have to have soldiers stationed in over 100
countries?
When I question your comment, you refer me to:
On any given day, The Army has nearly 125,000 soldiers and
15,000 U.S. ivilians forward-stationed in over 100 countries
around the world. In FY 000, on a daily average, we deployed
more than 26,000 additional soldiers or operations and military
exercises in 68 countries-from East Timor to igeria to the Balkans.
"Forward-stationed" and "deployed" are similar in meaning, "stationed"
is not. if you're gonna play the game, you have to learn the lingo.
"Stationed" generally means a _permanent_ assignment. "Forward-stationed"
and "deployed" are both _temporary_. Cuba is a permanent station; Bosnia
is not.
You want to argue that we should NOT send troops into East Timor to (try to)
help with the unrest between the Timorans and the rest of Indonesia? Go for
it. After all, we didn't send them in to Rwanda, did we? Some will agree
with you, others won't. But be prepared to make a _REAL_ argument on the
subject. Don't just spout inanities.
On "living wage". Lessee; Mickey D's is advertising what, $7/hr these
days? At forty hours a week, that's $280; four and a half weeks a month
is $1260/month. You have to get promoted to E2 to make $1239/mo. E1 with
less than four months service gets $1023/mo; with more than four months
service $1106/mo. Yeah, working at McD's is a better choice, I'd say.
Should these junior enlisted men be allowed to marry, much less have
children? Probably not. Any more than college students should be allowed
to marry and have children. And you've got as much hope of stopping the
one as you have the other. Less, actually: those who have enlisted are,
by definition, independent. College students can still look to Mommy and
Daddy for help. (And I was very grateful for the help they gave us, too.)
Whether stationed or deployed, the only reason "we" would have soldiers in 100 countries is to maintain a global empire. See: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0319/p01s04-wosc.html I have no problems with paying soldiers a living wage as long as we employ fewer of them, deploy them strictly within the bounds of the United States, and cut the weapons programs like missle defense, the next generation of howitzers (go a google search for George H. Bush and Carlysile group), the excesive numbers of new airplanes and tanks, etc that are just pork for various congresional districts and a form of corporate welfare for Boeing, etc. If we are cutting welfare to welfare mothers, lets also cut welfare to Boeing, etc, fair is fair right?
hey joe -- would that person making ~1200/mo also be paying rent, utilities, transport etc? just curious .. i would pretty much put working at mcD's as about the same level of emotional abuse and degredation by 'western reason' as joining the army. any moron could stand in a trendy soho bag store and talk on the phone to their friends but they make 15 an hour and get free clothes and shoes. i'm wondering why no one has soldiers stationed here in the US .. you know - just to help out - just in case ..
<digression> Re #27: It is not inconsistent at all. Soldiers work for us, and many are expected to call it a career; McD's burger-slingers work for McDonald's, and are expected to call it afternoons and semesters off from school. If McDonald's has problems finding qualified workers we'll expect them to offer better compensation (such as, but not limited to, more money). If the USA has problems finding qualified soldiers, we do the same. Sensible people don't think that Washington has to tell McDonald's how much to pay to keep the drive-through moving; it's their issue, and simply not relevant to national policy. That's the difference between McDonald's and the military. </digression>
McDonalds probably also does not pay health insurance, or give free dental care, or a pension, to its $7/hour employees. $1000/month beyond rent, utilities, food, and medical costs is way more than I have ever earned. Is it also tax-free? (Is the free housing etc. at least tax-free?).
i know this may be hard to believe, but most people working shit jobs aren't white burb kids trying to make some money in between semester of college. there is a reason why they dont have trouble finding 'qualified workers' - high unemployment rates, shitty/expensive education, etc.
Heh. How many $1K/month Marines can you have ready to fight for how many years a the same cost as a single $1G bomber? Unfortunately, Marines aren't seen as "jobs" and don't make fat political contributions.
oval, generally speaking, no, they don't have to pay rent or buy food out of
their salaries. And they get an allowance to help maintain their uniforms.
They do have to pay income tax on their salaries. The allowances that
are not taxable are the same ones that are not taxable for civilians:
housing at and for the convenience of the employer, special clothing
maintenance, and food for the convenience of the employer, for instance.
(Thus, McD's employees aren't taxed on the value of the meals they eat.)
If they are married or otherwise have dependents, then they _may_
have permission to live separately and so may get a housing allowance.
(Come to think on it, they can sometimes get permission to live separately
even when they don't have dependents. It depends upon what's available
at the local station and duty requirements.) The amount depends upon
rank and whether they have dependents:
BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING
Pay BAH-II (With BAH-II (Without BAH BAH
Grade Dependent) Dependent) Differential PARTIAL
E-4 484.20 338.40 153.90 8.10
E-3 450.90 332.10 125.70 7.80
E-2 429.60 269.70 168.90 7.20
E-1 429.60 240.60 199.50 6.90
I don't know when the Differential and Partial allowances would be given,
but partial may be a daily rate, for when a person is temporarily assigned
elsewhere.
Unfortunately the full table is a PDF, so it's easier to point you at
the URL, but I don't want to repeat myself; it's up there somewhere.
Raven, if you _really_ think Bosnia and East Timor are about "global
empire", you are a bigger idiot than your previous posts have shown you
to be be. Your ignorance is above my poor ability to illuminate.
re #32 Beady in 1999 over 25% of workers made less than poverty level wages. " * The number of jobs where wages were below what a worker would need to support a family of four above the poverty line also grew between 1979 and 1999. In 1999, 26.8% of the workforce earned poverty-level wages, an increase from 23.7% in 1979. This is not just high school and college kids we are talking about, in the service economy famalies are trying to make on such a pittance and failing. So much for conservative family values, eh? Or was that rich family values. If you are Enron with your hand in the cookie jar or Boeing sucking on the military industrial tit you are gold, but lord help you in you try to make an honest buck in the service sector, or in the army for that matter. As I said I have no objection for a living wage for those who do serve in the military, my objection is to wasteful weapons systems and global empire.
It's tough to reconcile a living wage with the tendency - especially
in light of the WTO - of our corporations to take business elsewhere if the
local labour costs are too expensive. Even if by some legislative miracle
we discourage that, other nations' companies will probably do the same. It's
not as simple as enacting a living wage law.
Though America does have the longest working hours and the greatest
deviation between the poor and rich of any first world nation, from what I
understand.
Re #34: Either those people are only in those jobs temporarily,
(in which case a permanent solution is unwarranted) or they made
the error of taking on greater responsibilities than their skills
were able to support.
If you arbitrarily increase the wage to a "living wage", all you
are going to do is:
1.) Price the product out of the market, so that the people
who now buy it cannot afford it. A product with no
buyers does not get made, and requires no one to make it.
2.) Create an incentive to replace labor with machinery, which
eliminates the unskilled labor you are supposedly helping.
(It employs people like me at ten times their wages.)
Either way those people are out of work, and they are even worse
off than before because there are fewer entry points to the labor
force. What they really need is better skills. There is no
substitute; trying to dictate wage rates creates worse problems
in the long run, not the least of which is the perverse incentive
to take what low-skill jobs still exist instead of improving skills.
Re #35: I doubt that you could find a million people willing to
be Marines. Without the close-air support of those billion-dollar
bombers, you might not be able to find ten thousand. Besides, what's
best for the country: jobs for people carrying rifles, or jobs for
people building airplanes?
| Last 40 Responses and Response Form. |
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss