--- In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" > <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm > > > Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,387 billion > > > MILITARY: 51% and $1,228 billion > > > NON-MILITARY: 49% and $1,159 billion > > > > > > HOW THESE FIGURES WERE DETERMINED > > > > > > "Current military" includes Dept. of Defense ($585 billion), the > > > military portion from other departments ($122 billion), and an > > > unbudgetted estimate of supplemental appropriations ($20 > > > billion). "Past military" represents veterans' benefits plus 80% > of > > > the interest on the debt.* > > > > > > These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in > > > the "Analytical Perspectives" book of the Budget of the United > > > States Government, Fiscal Year 2008. The figures are federal > funds, > > > which do not include trust funds such as Social Security > that > > > are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay > (or > > > don't pay) by April 17, 2007, goes to the federal funds portion > of > > > the budget. The government practice of combining trust and > federal > > > funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs > > > portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion > smaller. > > > > > > *Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the > military; > > > other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe > if > > > there had been no military spending, most (if not all) of the > > > national debt would have been eliminated... > > > > > > http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm > > > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > > Now you're making sense. > > > > You could have used the correct terms in the first place and not > > wasted my time.>> > > Now you're catching on.
It's not a question of ME catching on, it's a question of YOU writing properly so that I can understand what you mean to say. > > But I'm still waiting for some words of wisdom from you about the > following: > > Why is Ron Paul diametrically opposed to everything I stand for?? Paul is for as little government intervention in our lives as possible; you are for as much government intervention in our lives as possible. > > I don't think you have a clue what I stand for. > > There are a couple of things I disagree with him on. A woman's right > to choose about her own body, which I am of the believe will NEVER > be overturned by the supreme court. It is impossible to do so, (and > impossible to implement and police anyway)...and I am sure Ron Paul > knows it is impossioble to change. It is not a major policy for him > to change it. > > He, like me, was for Afganistan UN intervention, and against US/UK > isolantionist, retarded Iraq war/quagmire. > > He is fiscally responsible (which I am trying to emulate :-), and he > makes a strong fiscal argument for the abolition of income tax, and > I believe his arguments make sense if you listen to them in detail. > > Looking at the titles on that site suggests nothing extreme to my > views? But if you have something you think I would disagree with let > me know. > > Ron Paul wants a non-interventionist foreign policy, which I agree > with, although I disagree with withdrawing from the UN, and I > actually am convinced he will never do that in practice even if he > thinks he will right now. > > He seems like an actual nice guy ....in politics ! > > The thing about Ron Paul is he is more of a real Republican, unlike > any of the other candidates. (4 out of 10 of those rednecks don't > believe in evolution and think the world is 6 thousand years old) > > Ron Paul is by far the most popuular politician on YouTube right > now. It is an incredible phenomena if it keeps up. > > I think he could inspire many of those who don't vote to come out > and vote. > > OffWorld >
