user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Newest Ballots
Newest Blogs
Private Ballots
Joke Ballots
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Well, with the fall of the Soviets, you had a communist nation. Could our public sector suffer from these financial expenditures? Of course. However, most of the US is private sector, so the citizens won't see much financial strain from this. Just think of the percent of your income that currenty funds the military and it will clear things up.
The US is already near bankruptcy. It isn't because of Social Security, it is because of massive budget deficits mostly ran up by republicans. This has created an enormous debt. Because of this debt, that money is not available for public investment. Also, note that the massive budget deficits run up by Bush do NOT include "off-budget" items like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The billions spent in Iraq could have helped greatly in funding research, education and technology. All of these things contribute to the long term health of a country - unlike unneccessary wars.
Cletus, if I pay 30% in taxes, then nearly half of those taxes is for the military. That is a lot of money.
^I am not saying for sure your numbers are innacurate, but where did you come up with 15%? Unless that was just an example.
Also, near bankruptcy? The US gov't has NEVER, in its history, defaulted. They have the best credit on earth. That's why US government securities, bonds, etc. are attractive investments.
Doubtful. Russia is not just another country, nor is Great Britain. Is this ballot meant to disguise a secret desire you have Cranky? We all know you're no fan of ours, so my guess is yes. Does imagning it make you wet?
:) Still applies, so just copied and pasted it here. Again, doubtful. In reality, it accounts for roughly about 4% our total GDP, which is above $12 trillion now. Still managable and actually, less of a % than many countries spend. So no, don't think it will.
A lot of morons think the US is closer to bankruptcy than European nations but if you compare debt/GDP you'd see that US debt is comparable to most European nations. There is also the issue of unfunded pensions for civil servants. In order to improve the situation we should start cutting programs, starting with welfare.
^I agree with most of that. However, even though I am a strong supporter of a free market, I think there has to be some safety net for people who lose their jobs but want to work while they are seeking employment and such cases as that. However, this should be limited and only given to those who demonstrate that they are looking for employment. Those who want a free-ride: work, hit the lottery, or have fun begging.
Cletus, if I pay 30% in taxes, then nearly half of those taxes is for the military. That is a lot of money.
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Jun 12, 2005
How do you figure half goes to the military? I guess it all depends on the tax rate. But based on rough calculations, if there are about 293 million Americans, it works out to be $1,500 per year, per citizen, or about $28.85 per week, per citizen, or about $115.40 per month, per citizen (cable TV for us is over $80.00 per month).
If you base it on there being about 150 million tax paying Americans, then it is about $3,000 per year, per working American, or about $57.69 per week, per working American.
But, that does not include other forms of taxes, such as corporate taxes, etc. So, I think the amounts are far lower. I could be wrong. Either way, I do feel that the world needs to spend more on humanitarian needs than on military.
And FIDS, I say I don't know because I am asking...NOT question...not doubting...just asking! :)
Definitely "Yes."
Bin Laden already asserted he would attempt this ... as happened with the Soviets (via Afghanistan.)
At present, IMO, the US is being baited into relying on expensive military responses to too many perceived "threats." If they continue down this ill-considered path, we will be at great risk of bankruptcy.
... and the rampant corruption and short-term focus plundering of the economy will exacerbate it.
The GDP fallacy: People ... don't make me hurt you!
Expressing expenses as a % of GDP is irrelevent! The revenues of the economy of the entire country is not available for US government spending! They can only use tax revenue. You do not justify the expense of a new sportscar by looking at the gross incomes of your block ... just what you have available to actually spend.
US military expenditure is a huge expense ... both in terms of annual tax revenues collected and as a cause for deficit. The US military expenditures are greater than the next TEN countries!
If you're going to try to make a case for such vast spending, make sure you use meaningful numbers.
The military spending is small compared to the square footage of teh surface area of the sun, too ... and that means about as much as fractions of GDP.
If we spend too much we'll go bankrupt, that seems to be common sense to me. But there's nothing magical about military spending where spending too much will hurt us any more than spending too much in any field. I suppose you could say does the US risk bankrupting itself by it's high social security expenditures, that's actually are larger percentage of the budget.
i dont think it will bankrupt itself but i guess you could say the budget will have to be managed better, especially as china will be the richest country in the world in 20 years time and money can't be wasted needlessly.
^China will not be the richest in 20 years. They aren't even a 3rd of the US right now, as I understand it.
I recently heard that if China's economy continues to grow at its present rate of 9% per annum, it will overtake the US within 50 years.
It never fails to amaze me that so few Americans challenge their MASSIVE military expenditure. Americans, just think what you could achieve if you diverted half of your military budget to other purposes... and you'd probably STILL have the best-funded military in the world.
Cathexis
You've made this mistake before. National income is as relevant to national debt as personal income is to personal debt. Our relatively low taxes and disinclination to tax relative to Europe hurts but to neglect GDP in a discussion of debt is just foolish.
China
Ever done business with Chinese in a relatively free country? When that country opens up they will dominate the global economy.
Well dungheap cunt you are not only spouting numbers but you don't know what they mean.
It will never happen that China will have 9% growth for 50 years.
I usually wouldn't smack some stupid shit down but you have followed me around all over like some lovesick mo with to much of a broken hand.
Eh? Fuck off, whoever you are.
thc: I have to disagree. The gross revenues of the entire country do not constitute liquid/ available assets; the vast majority of the actual funds associated with GDP are not available for government expenditures.
Your analogy is flawed: personal income (for the government) = revenues from taxes. You are erroneously equating the country (and its entire economy) with the government. A better analogy: The government is a lawyer on retainer to a rich client (the country). It doesn't matter how rich the client is ... unless the retainer fee is raised, the lawyer does not benefit (i.e., he has no access to the rest of the client's money).
The government is more like a parent and we are it's children. The government can dictate what we do and coerce us into doing it. Now some parents are more restrained than others, but when it comes down to it the parent doesn't really need it's children's permission. A lawyer and his clients have a much more voluntary relationship.
Geez, I suppose we could cut down on a lot of that by closing the bases in Europe and South Korea.
Also we could only fund NATO much less than we do.
Then we could lower our expenses by not paying the 27% of the total amount of UN Peacekeeping.
But if we were to do that all those little fucking bitches of the left would start crying like the stupid little bitches that they are.
I mean those in Britain, france, and Krautville that don't want to pay their fair share, and like to have the US taking care of their business.
That also includes Canada and Aurstralia who would be defenseless without the American outlay for military.
No, you are all so stupid. You think that the money would/could just be transferred to your fucked up and lame social programs. What a bunch of saps.
Interesting, it's funny how liberal philosophers from Greece said many of the same things about their military, then that empire collapsed. Philosophers from Rome said the same things about the military, then their empire collapsed. How funny it is that it took the United States only a little over 200 years, a relative drop in the bucket compared to other great military powers throughout history, for it's ignorant liberal people to begin talking about how 'the military uses too much money boo hoo hoo!!'
It's the military that maintains your way of life, regardless of your opinions about it, and the military that allows you to express those opinions freely.
Yeah, and it was the military in the Soviet Union and the military in Iraq during Saddam's regime that made those people so free.
newsflash!
Tools is tools.
by Jyl on Tue Jun 14, 05 11:57pm
[+]
No it will not put America in bankrupsy. America spends 466 billion on it's military. That is only about 4% of it's GDP. It is easily affordable.
|
|
