Guns and Butter

DubStyle311 · 10-05-2007, 11:33 PM

Interesting chart I saw in the paper this week. It shows military outlays and military spending as a percentage of GDP. Plus it shows how bad Clinton starved the military in the 90s. Even with all the costs associated with Iraq, were not even back to the pre-clinton levels.

Quote:

A War Surtax?
October 4, 2007; Page A18

Congressional Democrats have tried about every possible ploy to "end the war" in Iraq, albeit without having to take responsibility by cutting off funds. Now in their frustration, they're trying to revive an LBJ golden oldie -- a war "surtax."
[Chart]

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey entered Congress in 1969, so perhaps he had a Vietnam flashback this week when he announced the new tax to "pay for" the war in Iraq. He was joined by fellow House spending barons Jack Murtha and Jim McGovern, who said they hope to raise $140 billion to $150 billion annually by imposing a new 2% baseline levy on almost all taxpayers, ranging up to 15% for the highest brackets. Now, that's a surtax.

Their argument, echoed often in the media, is that such a tax is needed because war spending is busting the budget and crowding out domestic priorities. Iraq "will result in draining the Treasury so dry that it will result in systematic disinvestment of America's future," Mr. Obey says, with his customary understatement. "We need to stop pretending that this war doesn't cost anything." Someone's pretending, all right, but it is those who claim that Iraq spending represents some unique and overwhelming fiscal burden.

In fact, the U.S. is spending relatively little on defense by historic wartime standards, and that's including the $192 billion in 2007 to fund the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's true that overall defense spending, in dollars adjusted for inflation, is higher than it was during the 1990s. And thank heaven for that. Defense spending as a share of the economy in the Clinton years dipped to its lowest level since 1940, as we lived under the illusion of a "peace dividend" while al Qaeda was gaining strength.

The nearby charts illustrate the defense budget picture since 1989, and the end of the Cold War. The bottom chart shows that, as a share of the overall economy, defense spending fell almost in half to 3% of GDP from 1999-2001. It has since climbed back to 4%, and may hit all of 4.2% once final figures are in for fiscal 2007, which ended last week. That's still far below the peak during the Reagan arms buildup of 6.2% in 1986, and less than half the Vietnam peak of 9.5% in 1968.

But isn't the war in Iraq crowding out urgent domestic needs? Not even close. As the top chart shows, defense spending in 2007 will probably come in at 19.7% of total federal outlays. The Bush Administration request for fiscal 2008 is 20.1%, which is still below what it was (21.6%) in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected; as recently as 1987, it was 28.1%. Mr. Clinton and Congress slashed that defense share to 16.1% in 1999, before they began to remember that the world remains a dangerous place.

If you're beginning to suspect that this fight really isn't about Iraq, you've broken the Beltway code. As House Appropriations impresario, Mr. Obey has committed himself to passing spending bills for fiscal 2008 that surpass President Bush's discretionary spending target by $22 billion. He's thus trapped himself between a veto threat and the pent-up spending demands of his liberal constituencies. His "surtax" gambit is an attempt to change the debate by blaming his predicament on the costs of an unpopular war.

Mr. Bush isn't buying this, and neither should taxpayers. The federal budget deficit continued to decline in fiscal 2007, to something close to $165 billion, thanks to another year of buoyant revenue gains of about 7.5%. Those revenues flow from a growing economy that Mr. Obey's surtax would hit like a two-by-four.

If Mr. Obey wants a tax increase to fund more domestic spending, he ought to be honest and say so. His problem is that this wouldn't be as politically easy as blaming Iraq, and it wouldn't even be popular with many of own Democratic colleagues. Speaker Nancy Pelosi proved that when she quickly disavowed the Obey-Murtha-McGovern surtax on Tuesday. At least some Democrats have met a tax increase they don't like.

URL for this article:
hxxp://online.wsj.com/article/SB119146139105348517 .html

generic_hippie · 10-06-2007, 01:14 AM

propaganda

pure and simple statistical manipulation dubstyle

Okay, the war is free.

Consider this, the cost of everything in the 1970'2 was far less than it is today.

Gearâ€™s cost skyrocketed since WWII - Military Affairs - MSNBC.com

It cost (in 2006 inflation adjusted terms) $170 to equip an infantry man for WWII.

That's GI Joe without the scuba pack, just an ordinary grunt.

Today that same grunt costs (on the same economic scale, we are working with inflation adjusted figures here), that grunt costs $17500 to equip him to kill.

8,300,000 ground troops in the army for WWII, (lets just stick with one service here for the example).

Do the math, equipped wwII dudes on the ground cost $1411,000,000, (plus training).

Current active duty army strength near as I can find (Military of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is 507,082, (36% of full strength), which equates to a cost of $8,873,935,000, (plus training which I'm certain has also increased in price exponentially).

Remeber also the active duty component in WWII was the entire army, as opposed to the one third strength active duty situation that is currently the reality.

There's also the multitude of "private" armies like blackwater that have to be paid for...

It makes me sad that you believe the lies without question and seem to be entirely lacking in any ability remotely connected with critical thinking.

DubStyle311 · 10-06-2007, 01:37 AM

I wouldn't expect someone like you to know much about statistics. As you can see, the figures in the charts are percentages, which makes the nominal costs irrelevant because inflation effects GDP, total federal outlays, and military spending at the same rate.

Sugar420 · 10-06-2007, 01:42 AM

no matter how "little" it may be, every dollar spent on bullets to kill someone in iraq is a dollar stolen from the hungry, poor, and underprivileged in america, imo

generic_hippie · 10-06-2007, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

I wouldn't expect someone like you to know much about statistics. As you can see, the figures in the charts are percentages, which makes the nominal costs irrelevant because inflation effects GDP, total federal outlays, and military spending at the same rate.

I wouldn't expect someone like you...

Bigoted twat.

Someone like me, ffs.

Grow up.

The war is costing more than any other before it because it has been privatised, your support of spending large portions of the american economy on war and war related products not withstanding, that is a simple economic truth.

DubStyle311 · 10-06-2007, 02:07 AM

Id like to see a lot more hardware bought actually. The Russians are buying new bombers and we still dont. The Clinton years totally defunded and sold out our military. Im glad to see Bush reversing that trend. Thats why the military generally support Republicans.

yungsmoke · 10-06-2007, 02:14 AM

This is karma's way of saying that it is fiscally irresponsible for us to occupy Iraq. And where's the UN on this issue? Why should we drain ourselves when we can diversify the 'investment' overseas and of course attempt to legislate the people to pay more.

DubStyle311 · 10-06-2007, 02:22 AM

What do you mean yungsmoke?

There are many people who feel that the money spent in Iraq is a worthwhile investment.

yungsmoke · 10-06-2007, 03:41 AM

Right, while it's all good-hearted to help out a developing country we're not too far down the road from that state of primitive being. We should consider our own well-being before helping others, and I mean that in the most moral way possible. I'm totally against long-term occupancy in Iraq and we should start considering our own future before procreating futures for others.

To name a few issues, education and health care is compromised due to war funding and financial misguidance. We should start prioritizing and take care of our own people so that we can indeed help others.

If a few ambitious individuals were able to fabricate the world's largest economical entity and most powerful country in the world by revolting then I believe others can do so as well. I just think it's time for America to become America again.

Prophet Saddam · 10-06-2007, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

...Thats why the military generally support Republicans.

Sparing my slight intoxication, YOU'RE A FUCKING TROLL!

The military wants out of Iraq, hence the contributions to anti-war Ron Paul and the other 'anti-war' Democrats.

I'm ashamed that our political activism and politics forum has been overtaken by a few trolls that find it in their best interest to propagate war and tyranny by the executive branch.

Why the hell do you keep coming to these forums when you're predominately the minority? I'd appreciate some dissenting opinions, but not when they're on the extreme and completely contradictory to this forum's mission statement.

Prophet Saddam · 10-06-2007, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Interesting chart I saw in the paper this week. It shows military outlays and military spending as a percentage of GDP. Plus it shows how bad Clinton starved the military in the 90s. Even with all the costs associated with Iraq, were not even back to the pre-clinton levels.

And how about a link that f'ing works?!

DubStyle311 · 10-06-2007, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Bleez

Sparing my slight intoxication, YOU'RE A FUCKING TROLL!

The military wants out of Iraq, hence the contributions to anti-war Ron Paul and the other 'anti-war' Democrats.

I'm ashamed that our political activism and politics forum has been overtaken by a few trolls that find it in their best interest to propagate war and tyranny by the executive branch.

Why the hell do you keep coming to these forums when you're predominately the minority? I'd appreciate some dissenting opinions, but not when they're on the extreme and completely contradictory to this forum's mission statement.

Excuse me, but I am NOT trolling here.

The armed forces are made up of many different people who all have their own views, I obviously understand that. I said that generally they support Republicans because historically, Republicans have been much more aware of national defense and much more willing to fund the different branches of the military. Of course there are going to be people that serve who support a wide range of parties and ideologies. I would love to see some figures concerning the donations to Dems and Ron Paul versus Repubs. I'm just speculating here, but I find it very hard to believe that Ron Paul has a large base within the military. I imagine his policies would be more destructive to the US Military than President Bill Clinton.

Also, I'm sorry you feel that way about A&P. I come here to read other peoples opinion on politics and current events as well as share my own. I'm a very opinionated person. I will be the first one to admit that my opinions are not always correct, but I am entitled to them as much as anyone else. I feel that aggressive foreign policy is what it takes to limit the destructive force of radical islamic terrorism. I feel that preventing and preparing for nuclear terrorism is of the utmost importance. What you see as propagating war and tyranny, I see as a simple mental exercise to learn something new and understanding my own views better.

As to your question of why do I come here? Like I've said a million times, purely for my own edification. I enjoy reading the opinions of people who think differently from me. I browse a few political forums that are very conservative and others that are very centrist. I really think thats the best way to be informed politically. I dont get my ideas from any one source. If I may ask, do YOU regularly post at any political forums that are very contrary to your own political views? If you dont, I recommend that you do, its far more interesting than hearing your own ideas regurgitated over and over again.

Another reason I post here is because while I obviously am in the minority when it comes to my political opinions, there is a contingent of members here who agree with me and for whatever reason dont post. Whether its because they generally dont post much on the forums period or because they feel that they would be ostracized from the community by letting their true feelings be known, I've gotten a handful of PMs from people who tell me to keep up the good fight here.

And by the way, the link works fine. I just replaced http with hxxp because I dont like hot linking to certain websites. Copy and Paste the url into your browser and replace the xx with tt. Its the WSJ.com site though so subscription is required. Not for long though, if I had to make a guess. I imagine wsj.com will be free to view online in the not to distant future.

generic_hippie · 10-06-2007, 06:24 AM

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

Quote:

Originally Posted by Washington Post

By your own department's count, more than 160,000 for-hire personnel are working in Iraq today, which, amazingly, is greater than the number of uniformed military personnel there.

No chance this war costs, or thatthe stats have been diddled to the will of the war mongers.

LetsPlayYourWay · 10-06-2007, 07:24 AM

Dub being a biggoted extremists christian what you cant see is that more guns, more weapons and more chickenhawk warmongering from the likes of you will only lead to more problems,death and war. Is that what you want? Is peace through war what you cream your pants for? IS this how deluded you are?

Geeno · 10-06-2007, 07:41 AM

Considering that before clinton there was the cold war and all that went along with it, im not surprised that it was down during his years when there was seemingly less conflict.

stoneric · 10-06-2007, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Rue

Considering that before clinton there was the cold war and all that went along with it, im not surprised that it was down during his years when there was seemingly less conflict.

Exactly.

Our percieved enemies now; Iran, N. Korea, Syria and anyone else hostile towards our 51rst state, israel, don't quite match up with the Soviet empire.

Xil · 10-06-2007, 11:16 AM

How is starving the military of money a bad thing? Military downsizing is inherently good.

And wanting to 'get more hardware'? God damn do you really want a new cold war? You want to escalate tensions when we should be easing them.

Prophet Saddam · 10-06-2007, 12:32 PM

READ!

Military Favors Ron Paul Over McCain « Delaware :: Ron Paul

Military support for the republican candidates » The Truth @ The Spin Factor

yungsmoke · 10-06-2007, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Bleez

Sparing my slight intoxication, YOU'RE A FUCKING TROLL!

The military wants out of Iraq, hence the contributions to anti-war Ron Paul and the other 'anti-war' Democrats.

I'm ashamed that our political activism and politics forum has been overtaken by a few trolls that find it in their best interest to propagate war and tyranny by the executive branch.

Why the hell do you keep coming to these forums when you're predominately the minority? I'd appreciate some dissenting opinions, but not when they're on the extreme and completely contradictory to this forum's mission statement.

Because he's the moderator.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Bleez

READ!

Military Favors Ron Paul Over McCain « Delaware :: Ron Paul

Military support for the republican candidates » The Truth @ The Spin Factor

I'm seeing nothing but good things about Ron Paul here lately. Is it too good to be true?

Maturin · 10-07-2007, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Bleez

Sparing my slight intoxication, YOU'RE A FUCKING TROLL!

c'mon Pete,

I expect better from you. intoxication or no.

(though I have to say the whole Ron Paul thing is kinda turning you into a Johnny one note).

10-06-2007, 01:14 AM	#2 (permalink)
generic_hippie question authority Join Date: May 2003 Location: 20 km's from Nimbin, Australia Posts: 3,969 Thanks: 121 Thanked 262 Times in 170 Posts	propaganda pure and simple statistical manipulation dubstyle Okay, the war is free. Consider this, the cost of everything in the 1970'2 was far less than it is today. Gearâ€™s cost skyrocketed since WWII - Military Affairs - MSNBC.com It cost (in 2006 inflation adjusted terms) $170 to equip an infantry man for WWII. That's GI Joe without the scuba pack, just an ordinary grunt. Today that same grunt costs (on the same economic scale, we are working with inflation adjusted figures here), that grunt costs $17500 to equip him to kill. 8,300,000 ground troops in the army for WWII, (lets just stick with one service here for the example). Do the math, equipped wwII dudes on the ground cost $1411,000,000, (plus training). Current active duty army strength near as I can find (Military of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is 507,082, (36% of full strength), which equates to a cost of $8,873,935,000, (plus training which I'm certain has also increased in price exponentially). Remeber also the active duty component in WWII was the entire army, as opposed to the one third strength active duty situation that is currently the reality. There's also the multitude of "private" armies like blackwater that have to be paid for... It makes me sad that you believe the lies without question and seem to be entirely lacking in any ability remotely connected with critical thinking. __________________ Love is my favourite DRUG...

10-06-2007, 01:37 AM	#3 (permalink)
DubStyle311 Old School Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: down the highway Posts: 7,229 Thanks: 0 Thanked 80 Times in 65 Posts	I wouldn't expect someone like you to know much about statistics. As you can see, the figures in the charts are percentages, which makes the nominal costs irrelevant because inflation effects GDP, total federal outlays, and military spending at the same rate. __________________ I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

10-06-2007, 02:07 AM	#6 (permalink)
DubStyle311 Old School Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: down the highway Posts: 7,229 Thanks: 0 Thanked 80 Times in 65 Posts	Id like to see a lot more hardware bought actually. The Russians are buying new bombers and we still dont. The Clinton years totally defunded and sold out our military. Im glad to see Bush reversing that trend. Thats why the military generally support Republicans. __________________ I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

10-06-2007, 02:22 AM	#8 (permalink)
DubStyle311 Old School Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: down the highway Posts: 7,229 Thanks: 0 Thanked 80 Times in 65 Posts	What do you mean yungsmoke? There are many people who feel that the money spent in Iraq is a worthwhile investment. __________________ I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

10-06-2007, 11:16 AM	#17 (permalink)
Xil OD'ing on sobriety Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Mizzura Posts: 3,292 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 993 Thanked 1,108 Times in 687 Posts	How is starving the military of money a bad thing? Military downsizing is inherently good. And wanting to 'get more hardware'? God damn do you really want a new cold war? You want to escalate tensions when we should be easing them. __________________ Life is a waste of time and time is a waste of life, so get wasted all the time and have the time of your life

10-06-2007, 01:42 AM	#4 (permalink)
Sugar420 Old School Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 6,093 Thanks: 32 Thanked 132 Times in 706 Posts	no matter how "little" it may be, every dollar spent on bullets to kill someone in iraq is a dollar stolen from the hungry, poor, and underprivileged in america, imo

10-06-2007, 07:24 AM	#14 (permalink)
LetsPlayYourWay YaHookan Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,081 Thanks: 86 Thanked 255 Times in 183 Posts	Dub being a biggoted extremists christian what you cant see is that more guns, more weapons and more chickenhawk warmongering from the likes of you will only lead to more problems,death and war. Is that what you want? Is peace through war what you cream your pants for? IS this how deluded you are?

10-06-2007, 12:32 PM	#18 (permalink)
Prophet Saddam YaHookan 2011 Winner Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: CA, fuck yeah Posts: 16,340 Blog Entries: 11 Thanks: 3,690 Thanked 713 Times in 479 Posts	READ! Military Favors Ron Paul Over McCain « Delaware :: Ron Paul Military support for the republican candidates » The Truth @ The Spin Factor __________________ SUPPORT THE TROOPS --------------------- BRING THEM HOME & FUCK THE WAR

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: