Wow…Liberal Garbage
-
FrankTheTank91 — 14 years ago(October 18, 2011 10:06 AM)
Excellent breakdown of the benefits of our defense richard-goodenough also accurate and eloquently stated. These are facts many anti-defense people don't like to digest. I hope you don't mind me stealing these facts for other discussions in the future
-
dan-g-klasson — 11 years ago(February 06, 2015 10:50 PM)
It's true that it is decreasing. But what does it matter if you can blow up the world 7 or 6 times over? The point is the reckless spending on something that has no value.
Secondly, how much of that 300 billion do you think is spent on reconstruction? So far, what have they reconstructed in Iraq or Afghanistan besides for the oil industry? How many hospital and schools have they built?
The brutal truth is that they murder innocent women and children for oil. And that the American people get nothing for it. Not even free healthcare. -
DYouKnowWhatIMean — 13 years ago(September 16, 2012 06:16 PM)
Health Care is not that expensive. It does not take anywhere near a quarter million dollars to perform heart surgery. Health Care is marked up to the extreme. I wouldn't doubt it is marked up past 500% or so.
"Death! Delicious strawberry flavored death!" -
jmbwithcats — 15 years ago(July 01, 2010 09:02 PM)
Wait a second
If A = the movie about healthcare needing to change,
and B = you feel healthcare does need to change,
then C cannot equal less than A+B when A and B are both positive numbers.
Your logic makes no sense.
www.kittysafe.net
Online Mews, Reviews, Poetry, Music, and Ideas -
richard-goodenough — 15 years ago(July 06, 2010 11:43 AM)
It amazes me how people feel the need to reduce a debate to personal insults just because of a perceived difference of opinion. It is really quite immature. I can see the argument from both sides
If you were to calculate a nations defense budget by GDP (which is the fair way to actually compare budgets of any kind, the US budget for most programs far exceed that of any other nation due to the vast differences in national wealth)the United States doesn't even make the top 10.
Rank Country Military expenditure, 2009[2] % of GDP, 2008
94 Eritrea 327,000,000d 20.9%d
78 Georgia 665,000,000 8.5%
8 Saudi Arabia 39,257,000,000 8.2%
41 Oman 4,003,000,000 7.7%
17 Israel 14,309,000,000 7.0%
86 Chad 412,000,000 6.6%
19 United Arab Emirates 13,052,000,000a 5.9%a
66 Jordan 1,392,000,000 5.9%
43 Iraq 3,814,000,000 5.4%
54 Sudan 1,971,000,000c 4.4%c
1 United States 663,255,000,000 4.3%
Also, you must keep in mind that we are at war, and we have a significantly more land to protect than most nations. Also the US DOD R&D provides many breakthroughs that improve quality of life. Also the US guarantees protection for many of its allies such as Taiwan and Japan. Also the US is typically an early adopter of new technologies whereas other countries tend to wait, which drives costs up. Also keep in mind that a powerful military is a good deterrent to help prevent wars of aggression against us. If Germany's neighbors and an army equivalent or superior to Germany then WWII may have never happened.
The nukes being destroyed are based on an older technology or have passed their life expectancy, and as such they are destroyed and recycled. Some (not all) of the destroyed nukes are replaced by newer weapons. -
richard-goodenough — 15 years ago(July 06, 2010 08:05 PM)
What about the conflict between Russian and Georgia from 2008 - current? What about Iran-Iraq, Iraq-Saudia Arabia in the late 1990s? What about the warin the Gaza strip between Palestine and Israel? What about the threat of war from Iran against Israel and its allies (including the US.) What about PROC (China) threats to reclaim ROC (Taiwan)? What about N. Koreas continued threats to global peace? How about the conflict between Pakistan and India that resulted in a nuclear arms race that still continues? Not sure if this is considered an active war, but the two sides do occasionally fire upon each other.
Granted you may not consider all of these nations "civilized," but I suppose that is dependant upon how you define civilized. If you mean Westernized then I suppose Israel is the only one (perhpas Taiwan to some extent.)
Wars do not happen in Western Europe because the neighbors share linked economies and war would likely cripple the entire continent. There of course would also be repurcussions including heavy sanctions or war from the US in the event of an attack a Western European nation. Japan also enjoys the guarantee of protection from the US which deters others from a war of aggression.
My point regarding post WWI Europe was to indicate that without the threat of a strong opposing force war is much more likely. War is inevitable and is likely continue to happen for the remainder of the human race. Why you ask? Read a history book.
Also Japan attacked the US because of economic pressures and impediments to its war efforts as the result of a US naval blockade of Japanese ports, restricting the flow of much needed oil into Japan. This is not very different from economic sanctions we place on many nations today. Any one of these nations could attack the US if we were to abandon national defense. -
richard-goodenough — 15 years ago(July 07, 2010 12:14 PM)
I support the war in Afghanistan, but was never convinced that war was necessary in Iraq. Regardless, once we became involved (in both) I feel that it would be reckless to just pull out. This would likely cause more harm to the region than staying and providing security until a government is formed that is capable of securing its own borders and protecting its citizens.
I missed answering your earlier question where you asked if more wealth justified more money spent on defense, to which my reply is absolutely yes. The more wealth you have the more you should invest to protect that wealth. If you had a studio apartment with a mattress sitting on a box spring on the floor, a 13" television set, and some cutlery pots pans etc, then you could not really justify spending an inordinate amount of money on home security outside of maybe renters insurance. If you on the other hand had a half million dollar house, 2 luxury vehicles, state of the art consumer devices/appliances etc, a wife and 3 kids then you would probably be more willing to spend thousands of dollars on a security system. If you had a multi-million dollar estate you might even be able to justify actual security (but probably not.) I think the same principle applies to national security. Bottom line, the more you have the more you stand to lose, the more you should invest to protect it. -
richard-goodenough — 15 years ago(July 07, 2010 01:16 PM)
First, the house example was an analogy to illustrate my point, that is that the more you have the more you stand to lose. And the US may be in debt but that is because of reckless spending (not just national defense) but still considered a wealthy nation in terms of industrial capacity, land, and interests across the globe. The most common measure of a nations wealth is its GDP, for which the US is the world leader and accounts for almost 25% globally.
Second, the deficit in the budget is more than double what is spent on national defense, and has increased over $3 trillion in the last 2 years. So if we completely stopped all spending on national defense the deficit would continue to grow. Over 37% of the national debt is the loss of tax revenue as a direct result of the recession.
I am not saying that some cuts cannot be made, I am sure some reduction in spending is in order, but not to the magnitude of 25% - 50%. The money being used for national defense also creates thousands of public and private sector jobs.