USA 2008 budget

  • Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!

    Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.

Martz

Martz

Staff member
May 26, 2001
5,707
63
Reading a news story today about how $700 billion has been allocated for defense spending by the USA in 2008.

$700 billion
-----------------------
Population of 298 million

= $2349 per year per person
OR
= $195 per month per person

That the average American pays in taxes to keep their defense contracts pumping money into the pockets of the share holders.

I thought it was absolutely amazing anyway. Just think of the amount of positive stuff that could be done with all that cash.
 
Uh... the USA has over 300,000,000 people. Estimated population as of 2:17pm GMT is 300,894,223.

We broke 300,000,000 in November.



But yes, it's lovely how America is a country where we can get unlimited resources for military spending (essentially worthless because it doesn't contribute back to society) but schools have to hold bake sales to afford textbooks for children.
 
Martz said:
Reading a news story today about how $700 billion has been allocated for defense spending by the USA in 2008.

$700 billion
-----------------------
Population of 298 million

= $2349 per year per person
OR
= $195 per month per person

That the average American pays in taxes to keep their defense contracts pumping money into the pockets of the share holders.

I thought it was absolutely amazing anyway. Just think of the amount of positive stuff that could be done with all that cash.
Click to expand...

that's not taxes only payed per person directly to the goverment, (Stockings, Products/services selling) maybe it'll end up 500 p/p in a year which they'll notice on their tax letter...

don't know the average here in holland or anywhere else... but 700 billion is much indeed... Enviroment could be saved, people got get medicin, Lex Mortis could get beer and so on...
 
$au$je said:
don't know the average here in holland or anywhere else... but 700 billion is much indeed... Enviroment could be saved, people got get medicin, Lex Mortis could get beer and so on...
Click to expand...
According to some sources, it (the US military budget) is more than all other nations in the world, combined. Ten times more than China (which is second in the list)
More money is being spent on defense by Bush now, than was spent in WWII. You know, when there was actually a war going on, instead of some farmers with AK's, RPG's and explosives tied around their waists in the hills.


Source: http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views07/0210-26.htm

Bugger knows if it's reliable, I was amused either way.
 
And the true cost of the way in Iraq has been estimated at $2 trillion !!!

That site only shows up to $ 300+ billion.
 
I feel some people are quite narrow minded when it comes to considering the bigger picture. I don't agree that invading other countries is the right way to go about sercuring short term demands for natural resources and I think that the money could indeed have been better spent invested into new technologies or even developing nuclear energy further. However, environmentalists won't stand for a full nuclear program and "moralists" won't stand for "invading" other countries. But environmentalists or moralists they still rely on fossil fuels in their everyday life. In the end you can't please everyone and to stay in power and serve their country goverments need to ensure that they can meet their countries energy demands. I would love to see the choas caused in this country if we did not have any oil for even 1 day. Now extend that to every day and try to understand why the politicians have their backs to the wall.

Bush's administration spending so much on their defence budget is purely self inflicted and the more they continue the worse the terrorist threat will become but if they stop then they appear weak and expose themselves to more attacks within their country. So they are really left with no choice until Bush is replaced. Whatever happens now Bush cannot undo what he did and the only way the US will be able to negotiate with some of these terrorists will be under different leaders opposed to Bush.
 
addition to Joko's post: different leader, and out of iraq. you can put any leader in place, but as long as they're on ground where they don't belong, there's no way to reason with anyone (especially thickheads like them terrorists).
 
The terrorism line has been used enough now. If the states was concerned about terrorism, they would have actually spent their defense budget on defense. Imagine how locked down they could make every single airport, train/tube station and large public place with $2 trillion over 5 years.

They spent their defense budget on attacking and killing people. I think thats what people have a problem with. And the repercussions will be serious for decades to come. For all of us.

I think the states appears very weak already. They are fighting a battle which they lost a long time ago. There was absolutely no link between Iraq and terrorism until the invasion started and Saddam was removed. There was no terrorism in Iraq, apart from the state sponsored stuff. And if its state sponsored then it's called war or a policy.

But all that doesn't matter. The main point, which so many people on the Internet have brough up since well before the invasion of Iraq, was the corporate kickbacks.

Halliburton has received billions and billions of $ in no-bid contracts, and the Bush Administration has directly benefitted from the way since they are share holders. The scandals which surround the company are still ongoing, and they have now been removed as contractors after they have raped the US out of their money.

I mean, why I should give a fuck I don't know. I'm not American, I would never step foot in the country while it blatently fucks over the world. If a simple, middle class white man from England gets so angry at the actions of a super power in the Middle East - I can't imagine what an Iraqi thinks who has had his city and infrastructure bombed; his family murdered by the US Army and terrorists; and civil war break out.
 
Bush's administration spending so much on their defence budget is purely self inflicted and the more they continue the worse the terrorist threat will become but if they stop then they appear weak and expose themselves to more attacks within their country. So they are really left with no choice until Bush is replaced. Whatever happens now Bush cannot undo what he did and the only way the US will be able to negotiate with some of these terrorists will be under different leaders opposed to Bush.
Click to expand...

I see the point but how will that work? Has the US defense budget ever gone down (I'd look it up but I'm at work and too many sites are blocked) when a new administration replaced an old one? And what exactly is the next US regime going to do, at a time when virtually every other country in the world nakedly loathes America, thanks to Bush? I can't see them coming in announcing that the defense budget will be slashed in half. They need protection now more than ever, and I see no reason for the next government to avoid upping the budget 'just in case'. They won't be able to get away with the Halliburton thing again, but the sort of politicians who win votes in America are not people dedicated to improving the country for each and every citizen. I can't picture the new president saying 'Oh, bollocks to oil. It's getting old now, let's try solar power.' Everyone wants it and America have the power to get it, and if that means a falsified, half-arsed war on this week's 'terrorists', who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

Whoever does replace Bush will have a hell of a time trying to clear up the man's mess, so will he even try? Or will it be easier just to implement his or her own policies and use Bush as a scapegoat, an excuse for why things are still so fucked up?

Bush and his goons have fucked America, and quite a few other places, and (though I'm hardly a politician) I can't see any way back for the States. Certainly not when you consider human nature and the nature of politics in the richest country in the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back