--- In [email protected], off_world_beings <no_re...@...> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> , "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> , off_world_beings <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > , "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > , TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also in their favor is that Euro-nations have not spent > > > > > the decades since World War II spending literally *half* > > > > > of their Gross National Product on "defense," which is > > > > > a euphemism for both "Better ways to kill people," and > > > > > "Subsidies for Defense Industries." America has. > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > Before you open your big, fat mouth about things you know nothing > > > about, why don't you actually do some research? > > > > > > > > Show me one year since WWII when half of the GDP was spent on > > > "defense". > > > > > > > I have to agree with Turq on this. If you take Social Security out > of > > > the equation, then almost every year more than half was spent on > > > military. Social Security trust fund was inserted into the equation > by > > > the Republicans in the 1960's to try to hide their exorbitant > defense > > > spending. It has no business being in there because it is a trust > find > > > and not the Government's to use, spend, or touch. > > > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > > You guys are mixing up "GDP" with "Federal Budget". > > I was not mixing it up with GDP. I assumed he meant 'discretionary > budget'. That seemed obvious. > > GDP is about 15 trillion for the US, which by the way, was always my > argument as to why we are not in a depression, just an adjustment. > We live in a world economy (not a US economy) of about 75 trillion with > Europe as the biggest block at about 18 trillion. So with a 75 trillion > dollar economy, a few trillion here and there is not the end of the > world. > > OffWorld
"a few trillion here and there is not the end of the world". Gosh, I was nervous when Bush had a deficit of $580 billion. This year Obama and his Democratic Congress have given us a $1.8 trillion deficit. Divide that amount by the 300 million people in the U.S. and you come up with a figure of $6,000 per person. And that's just ONE YEAR. Obama's planning on doing this each and every year. Perhaps not the end of the world but pretty darn close to the end of America. > > > > They are NOT the same thing. The entire federal budget even at the > exhorbitant $3.8 trillion is but 27% of the 14.3 trillion GDP in 2008 > for the United States. See: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal> ) > > > > And, yes, I may agree with you vis a vis the Social Security spending > inclusion. Both Social Security and Medicare are essentially insurance > programs. Their contributions and benefits are taken and meted out > completely differently than all other spending and taxing by the federal > government and, as such, should be segregated from the budget. > > > > But defense is NOT about half of the budget even when SS and Medicare > are taken out. See the following and do the math: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008 > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008> > > >
