This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
A History Of US Defense Spending Since FDR; And Where Obama And Romney Differ
Presented with little comment, via Bloomberg Insider's Convention 2012 Issue; the history of military spending (which we discussed recently) and the $400bn divide between Obama and Romney's agenda.
Source: Bloomberg
»
- 30342 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Maybe a new POTUS could get you a ticket to Kolob?
You're 15 years late. The Heaven's gate folks "departed" from San Diego headed up to the "spaceship" in 1997.
Mitt is smart enough to know that we will probably have to mix it up, or at least be very ready to, with China and or Russia... he could, however, try to spend a little smarter rather than just balloon the spending with our monster debt... maybe close many of the bases in Japan and germany, let the ingrates in S. Korea defend themselves, maybe put those guys on the SW border... reduce the influx of diseased parasites...
Oh bullshit. We are not going to mix it up with either China or Russia militarily. What would that mean, anyway? Battallions of trops lined up against one another? Get real.
A war of words, maybe, but we are already engaged in economic warfare with China, and the traitors in Washington, on Wall St, and in the boardrooms of multi-national corporations are joined together to make sure we lose.
Electronic warfare is ongoing already, too.
No, we are busy working for the MIC to make sure those bloated defense contractors keep building weapon systems and supplies that we don't need....and in too many cases, that the military doesn't even want, but politicians want to keep financing for their "constituents".
What both of these Presidential Pretenders should be doing is seriously looking for ways to slash MIC spending. A good place to start would be the complete elimination of the Department of Homeland Security. But no, let's get rid of the Department of Education. Let's defund Planned Parenthood. Let's turn Social Security over to Wall St after we get our own personal accounts to manage, & let's turn Medicare into a voucher system you can use to get private insurance...when you are 80 years old and can't even see to read the fine print. Hohoho....more tax breaks all around for the new American Aristocracy.
The GOP is the big spending party.
Of the last 7 Presidents 3 Repub grew government the most, measured per capita.
#1 Nixon/Ford the most, then #2 Regan, followed by #3 Bush II.
The 3 lowest were Dems:
Clinton the least, followed by Obama, then Carter.
The GOP is the BIG SPENDING PARTY!
We'd only do it through proxies. For example, Syria is secondarily about Saudi Arabia vs. Iran, tertiarily about US vs. Russia.
Hrm. So does anyone really think a Romney administration is going to rein in spending?
If so, why?
He'll probably "rein in spending" like the Reagan-Bush and Bush, Jr. administrations did -- i.e. by redirecting the money to a (slightly) different group of parasites.
Not to imply that the democrats will "rein in spending" either.
The only areas Romney will rein in spending is the non-elderly safety net and a few programs popular only with liberals like public broadcasting, funding for the arts and government regulatory offices. But this is only a small proportion of the budget. But when you add big tax cuts for the well-off, big increases in defense spending and (if he is not lying) restoring the 700 billion Obama cut from Medicare it looks like Romney plans to substantially increase the deficit.
That's the impression I get, yeah. Not that I care much--the next President is going to see the deficit to continue to climb no matter who it is, because Congress is just not interested in fixing any of the problems they've built.
If anyone cared about deficits, they'd be talking about a complete taxation overhaul and cutting entitlements. No one's talking about either of those things.
The fiscal cliff is going to result in increasing the deficit TREMENDOUSLY because revenues are going to fall off virtually overnight.
Didn't you get the memo from Dick Cheney? Deficits don't matter.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm
Reagan proved it, Dick picked up on it, and it continues to be demonstrated year after year.
"Someday, this war's gonna end."
BOTH of them will reiign in spending because the Federal government will be dead broke after Europe crashes and JP Morgan and BoA collect their FDIC protection.
It really doesnt matter who we vote for any more; we still get fucked by the same elites who plan to crash the whole system and be the tallest left standing.
I hope that they get more than they bargained for.
You didn't re-animate that flesh, Victor. Someone else made that happen!
"You Didn't Build That Frankenstein!' sez President Obama
- YouTube
There hasn't been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Ironic how they managed to get it done once and never came back. The billions we've spent on "Defense" or in the "Fight against Terrorism" since were surely well spent! Right.
So much misinformation, so much propaganda and so many lies. Who is worse? Those that manipulate truth and history by way of lying to the people or the ignorant dumb masses for actually believing them and their lies?
We're being lied to all the time. Just follow the damn $$ to fucking figure things out for yourselves.
Romney, if elected will have one clear mandate. WAR. Obama is not going for it and I$rael knows it.
That's largely why the MASS ARRESTS are going to occur. The U.S. military (and other oath keepers), believe it or not, are sick of fake commanders in chief, tired of unconstitutional wars that benefit the rich, and are no longer going along with the program... http://tinyurl.com/cd5cyjo/
You're living in a fantasy-world, spammer. No mass arrests are coming. Jesus isn't going to show up and smite a President, either.
Another gloom and doom fear-bot who never served a day in the military and has not clue that big events are on the horizon. I responded with substance to the substance of someones comment, you did not.
I responded with substance. I told you your dream will not be coming true.
Let's just wait and see, shall we?
Matt Taibbi did a little number of Mitt this morning. When Matt speaks, he generally moves the needle.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829
Nice - thanks for the link. Love Matt
Matt summarized on 5 pages what every American should know about Mitt Romney, Bain Capital and Wall Street in general.
The money a.k.a wealth (to a few) a.k.a debt (to most) is surreal. There's nothing backing it but it sure enabled a very small group of elites to manipulate the economy and the global power structure. With nothing but illusory wealth and ficticious accounting.
Americans should vote to DEFAULT on all their debts. Personal and public. That would put an end to the nightmare and be the silver bullet in the Wall Street vampire's hearts.
Back to basics. New currency. New chance, new opportunity - equal and for everyone. Let's reward REAL talent and REAL productivity.
Enough of this bullshit which allows some assholes to pretend they have billions from nothing and allows them to buy whatever they please. Their wealth is not real and therefore their purchasing power should be eliminated once and for all.
This chart and these projections are based on one huge assumption - THE DEFENSE CUTS IN THE SEQUESTER GO INTO EFFECT!
I rate the probability at .000001%
No way, No how! Cuts to Entitlements I rate at 99.999999% to make up the difference.
The Military-Industrial Complex has to many powerful lobbyists - the future Social Security recipients - NONE.
The other reason this chart is BS - it does not include all the non-defense - defense spending.
Like two un-funded wars under the Bush Administration that were never part of his defense budget.
Also, the Dept of Energy (where our nukes are) and all the spy services hidden in other budgets, etc...
The totals are well over $1 trillion dollars, we have really surpassed the Regan high of 6% of GDP, more like 6.7%
Surprise, surprise! We always here of entitlements as "unfunded liabilties", as they are, but could anyone imagine a direct correlation between deficit spending and the bloated and obscene military budget?
"There's a hole in daddy's arm where all the money goes, Jesus died for nothing', I suppose." These words from the classic John Prine song Sam Stone and the unfortunate child of a heroin addicted veteran who cannot support his family might just as well express the despair and anguish of many Americans in regard to their "fatherland"as we witness the swiftly approaching collapse of Anglo/American empire, built and sustained on extortion, criminal racketeering...http://kushmonster.blogspot.com/2010/08/blog-post_07.html
a story of how one determined strong woman stopped a false flag event.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/28/the-truth-about-the-2007-invasion-of-iran-and-the-woman-who-stopped-it/
as Hulk Hogan used to say.
Whatcha you pussies goin to do?
I understand increasing or decreasing the defense budget. But before doing either wouldn't it be reasonable to ask for a mission plan? What are we defending? Who is the enemy? What are we trying to achieve? And last: is the defense spending increasing our freedoms or decreasing them?
what a waste of time
What this chart shows is the fact that defense spending has nothing to do with our fiscal and economic problems. Look at the numbers, you could zero out the defense budget and we'd still need another $500 billion in cuts to get the budget balanced.
Anyone who thinks there's no difference between Romney and Obama has had their head up their a$$ for the last 3.5 years. I don't know if Romney would make a good president, whether he'd be captive to Wall Street and the big banks, but at least we can safely say that he isn't a coke snorting, Marxist ideologue who doesn't have any experience in the real world.
$700 billion is about 20% of the Federal expenditure.
Great return we get on that investment, eh? Useless wars, crippled citizens stuck on the dole, and a big chunk of the world has legitimate reasons to want to blow up our cities.
I'm sure you're right that Romney can't be WORSE than Obama. He could easily be just as bad, though. That's what happened in the last election. We had a lousy President, and we replaced him with someone just as bad.
C'est la vie!
Exactly. It's 3 - 4% of GDP, around the lowest it's been since WW2. In terms of Federal expenditures, again near the low for the last 60 years. In 1970, defense spending was nearly 50% of the budget!
If gutting the defense budget was the answer, shouldn't France be the world's shining city on the hill of fiscal discipline?
No one's "gutted" anything, though. No point in playing with statistics.
The reason the ratio of military spending has dropped so much is because the completely uncontrollable entitlements grew faster. Military spending has still grown year over year *forever.*
For what?
In the case of Medicare, we've overinvested in medical technology. We have developed the potential to do useful stuff which was unthinkable in 1970. OK, it may not be the best use of funds to extend the life of a 70 year old another 5 years by giving him a $240,000 heart operation, but at least we can imagine the benefits from having that OPTION.
But in 1970, we already HAD the ability to obliterate countries. Today, we still have that ability. We ALSO now have the ability to locate and destroy individuals and groups with laser precision and pinpoint accuracy, and the autonomy to turn this technology onto anyone, including OURSELVES.
What do you imagine is the great benefit we've gleaned from that?
oakley outlet offers oakley sunglasses fake oakleys outlet,Cheap oakley sunglasses Sale at oakley ...