This is a fascinating article with some astonishing figures. http://www.slate.com/id/2183592/pagenum/all
Nice reference AGS. The size of the defense budget and the short shrift it gets in oversight is a crime to the American taxpayer. here is another interesting set of comments on defense spending from politico.com http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8342.html This one focuses on continued usage of Supplementals by the Bush administration: I found these parts revealing: On going use of supplemental funding shortchanges American citizens, ruins the budgeting process, and establishes that the requests are subject to Congressional scrutiny. Its been pure politics on both an administrative and political basis. All requests for funding have been back upped by an administration that screams we have to have this to support the troops. Meanwhile every administration in the past was capable and fulfilled the requirements of full funding requests of every war over the past 60 years, once the original war request was submitted. Bush has simply misled the American public on this issue injecting emergency, war threats, false patriotism about supporting the troops, fear comments about terrorism....when he simply has effectively changed the way Americans look at war funding....and done so in a way that has broken precedent with 60 years of history. Its a disgrace.
In his State of the Union message Bush specifically asked for a new policy that would allow military to take education grants and provide it for their families (primarily spouses). A nifty idea....far more relevant today with two income families. But the Bush budget for 2009. Not one single dollar budgeted for these comments. No bigger benefits for vets. Pretty much not worthwhile to pay attention to what Bush says.
A good portion of that budget goes to U.S. contracters and government workers, it goes towards paying america. Jobs = Good.
Because its not national security but world security. The reason other developed countries don't spend as much on defense as we do are for two reasons. One - They can't afford it, a lot of countries in Europe because of their social spending have decide to cut back on military spending. Two - The other reasons countries don't spend as much on defense as we do is precisely because we do. Let me explain. Other countries figure and for the most part has been true is that if they ever need to use military force to protect themselves they believe that America will be there to protect them. I'll give you an example. Kosovo when Milošević was killing everyone there and Germany and France afraid that refuges would spill over into their country they called on the US military to resolve the issue and they believe if they ever need military supremacy they'll call on the US again. Which is why we turned into the world's police force and which is why we spend what we spend on defense.
It would be good if (1) The government produced anything, or (2) the government wasn't taxing to get the money to provide the jobs. Taking from one group and giving to another, is a net gain of ZERO.
If you are talking to me, you will have to be clearer. I have no idea what you are talking about, as I have never advocated a trade war.
But "you" as in the US Administration, trying to be the "Worlds Police Force" are f**king everything up in the world. Can you not see that??? The US Administration needs to concentrate on things in their own country before thinking that they can involve themselves in other countries mate.