deprave
New Member
Looks like you do...My point was if there is ZERO entitlement spending and defense stays the same then we still go broke. Something republicans conveniently avoid.
Paul Ryan is a Succesful and important Politician
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
deprave
New Member
yes, every graph ever made has a bias, especially when it comes to politics.Are all the graphs twisted?
Sorry bro that statement is ridiculous. Defense spending per GDP is not the big issue you are making it out to be.
Are you getting classified information we don't know about then? LOL
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
deprave
New Member
[h=2]SIPRI Yearbook 2012 - World's top 15 military spenders[/h] Main article: List of countries by military expenditures
Currently, the world's five largest military spenders (the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom and France) are recognized to be world powers with each being a veto-wielding permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. This was established after the end of WW2.
|
| The world's top 5 military spenders in 2011. Figures sourced from the SIPRI Yearbook 2012. |
| Rank | Country | Spending ($ Bn.)[SUP][2][/SUP] | % of GDP | World Share (%) | Spending ($ Bn. PPP)[SUP][3][/SUP] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | World Total | 1,735 | 2.5 | 100 | 1562.3 |
| 1 |  United States | 711.0 | 4.7 | 41 | 711 |
| 2 |  China[SUP]y[/SUP] | 143.0 | 2.0 | 8.2 | 228 |
| 3 |  Russia[SUP]y[/SUP] | 71.9 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 93.7 |
| 4 |  United Kingdom | 62.7 | 2.6 | 3.6 | 57.5 |
| 5 |  France | 62.5 | 2.3 | 3.6 | 50.1 |
| 6 |  Japan | 59.3 | 1.0 | 3.4 | 44.7 |
| 7 |  Saudi Arabia[SUP]z[/SUP] | 48.2 | 8.7 | 2.8 | 58.8 |
| 8 |  India | 46.8 | 2.5 | 2.7 | 112 |
| 9 |  Germany[SUP]y[/SUP] | 46.7 | 1.3 | 2.7 | 40.4 |
| 10 |  Brazil | 35.4 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 33.8 |
| 11 |  Italy[SUP]y[/SUP] | 34.5 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 28.5 |
| 12 |  South Korea | 30.8 | 2.7 | 1.8 | 42.1 |
| 13 |  Australia | 26.7 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 16.6 |
| 14 |  Canada[SUP]y[/SUP] | 24.7 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 19.9 |
| 15 |  Turkey[SUP]y[/SUP] | 17.9 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 25.2 |
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
The war on an emotion will never stop
I wont say its ridiculous. Every penny counts. We should have a "standing" army to defend our nation. Not to be the police force of the world. A defensive army would still cost, but not quite as much as a global police force.
Its things like... paying to re-label food donations because the destination country refuses to accept donations that have American labels.
100k in the TARP package to go to "African Genital Cleaning Program".
Yes its only a few million to re-label food we are already paying a few million to donate, but it adds up. Yes its only 100k, but it adds up.
When you look at every single piece of American government spending there are millions and hundreds of thousands being tossed around like its monopoly money it makes a HUGE difference in the bigger picture. Billions being haphazardly thrown away.
I have to live fiscally responsible. I have to budget my money and spend it on priorities, without excess waste. Why should they be able to take MY MONEY, that I WORKED for, and spend it in a way I would never spend it myself?
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
Dude, you flat out do not know what you are talking about.
Go look at the history of defense spending vs GDP from the 1950s to present day, were we broke under Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton? No!
Now do the same research on entitlement spending and you'll see.
Well, in my opinion, to claim we would go broke if entitlements were cut to zero and defense spending continued, is totally ridiculous.
But I do agree with you on building and retaining the worlds strongest military for defense only.
We definitely need to stop being the worlds pro bono police.
Are we talking about the same thing at all? Is that even a seriously, thought-out reply to my quote?
At no point did I say I was against taxes or we should NOT be taxed. Not one time.
Government is necessary, taxes are necessary.
canndo
Well-Known Member
canndo
Well-Known Member
No matter who we elect, government is going to spend my money one way or another.
If they continue to force me to pay taxes, I'd rather it go to national defense than supporting a bunch of lazy freeloaders.
You would rather be complicit in killing people than support "a bunch of lazy freeloaders".
canndo
Well-Known Member
When we had a global empire, and we were the principle benificiary of granular peace, I was all for our being "pro bono police" but times are different and others profit heavily now from our presence across the world. However, i don't believe that there is any such thing as a strong defense without having a powerful capability for offense.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Are all the graphs twisted?
Why do so many on the right represent Social Security and Medicare as an unfunded entitlement? What am I missing? What exactly were those entries on my paychecks? I didn't see one that said "defense"
bedspirit
Active Member
This graph is fucked. The deception is that social security is included. Social Security is taxed differently and should be separate from the rest. It's not drawing dollars from the same place as the rest. When they talk about raising and lowering taxes, social security remains unaffected. The practice of putting trust funded programs together with federal funded programs serves only one purpose: to disguise how much you're spending on the military. If you remove Social security, the graph looks like this (the red part is military):Are all the graphs twisted?
all military expenditures add up to 1.449 trillion. We're bringing in about 1.7 trillion in taxes (without SS). After we pay for the military we have about 250 billion left. Unfortunately, it cost about 305 billion to pay all the government employees, So if you want to know if we could balance the budget by cutting all entitlements, the answer is no, not until you fire some motherfuckers.