Military Spending Is Already Bankrupting America

I have heard various different figures in relation Iraq/Afghanistan. The number quoted in your link seems very low and may represent only the additional off budget spend.

In 2000 the Total Military Spend was roughly 300 Billion. After 8 years of Bush this spend had increased to over 900 Billion and topped 1 Trillion under Obama. Had we maintained 2000 spend levels (increasing with inflation) - more than 4 times the amount required to defend the homeland - we could have diverted 500 Billion/year x 16 years = 8 Trillion dollars to infrastructure, technology and ramping up our economy to compete in the 3rd millennium.

Instead we threw this money down the toilet- fighting useless wars - to pad the pockets of international financiers that own the Military Industrial Complex.

Annual interest on our debt is 450 Billion/year. x 16 years and you can add another 7 Trillion to the total - again much of which goes into the pockets of the same international financiers that own the banks.

So Yeah ... I concur with your claim that our nation is - at least in part- being bankrupted by our mindless desire to police the world - a desire that is responsible for the downfall of every major economic/military empire throughout history.

 

Nope just saying you have failed to prove that the majority or even a substantial portion of defense spending is on military personnel and their families. And the silly claim that spending on veterans isn't military spending is like saying payments to Social Security recipients isn't part of the Social Security spending. Or Corporate spending on retirees is not a cost to the company.

 

How is that F35 program going? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

Totally false. And I'm betting that any "source" you try to post to prove it is from an anti defense spending organization of some kind which means it lacks all credibility.

Post from an unbiased or statement against interest source.

 

So name someone in US politics who isn't?? They're all $zillionaires. I can think of quite a few who make Donald seem competent - and in a way (think the booming US economy?) he's proved that he's more competent than any of them? Praps you should be grateful you have the best of a bad bunch?

 

Name me a government that doesn't?

 

Barack Obama ?
Bill Clinton ?

Indeed, most post-war Presidents have come from middle-class or working-class backgrounds (notable exceptions being the Bush clan and JFK).

Any number of House and Senate representatives on both sides of the aisle who have come from modest backgrounds.

Whether they subsequently become beholden to big whatever-it-is is a different matter.

 

Okay, so they might not have been squillionaires when they started but they sure are now, or soon will be from their earnings from after-dinner speeches, influence, etc.

Exactement.

 

...which makes it clear that you don't need to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth to make it in politics.

Some do, some don't. Strangely enough it seems to me that those who are wealthiest are the ones who appear to be furthest in the pocket of big interest groups. OTOH the loose cannons on both sides (whether it's the Tea Party or the latest batch of what Europeans would consider centrist who have been elected by the Democrats) tend to come from more modest backgrounds.

 

I take it that you're an American. As to our politicians - Westminster is a closed shop, and it's all about who you know . . . at least advancement is. Ordinary back-benchers are obviously voted in by their constituents irrespective of wealth, but they'll never progress into the political establishment.

 

So, you ignore all those years politician's got filthy rich and blindly blame Trump. How much are the Clinton's worth now? Obama? The problem will never get fixed because of blind partisanship.
https://www.amazon.com/Throw-Them-All-Peter-Schweizer/dp/0547573146

 

I don't see where in that chart is listed interest on the debt which is 22.3% of Federal spending for 2019.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_percent_spending

What is the Deficit as Percent of Federal Spending?
Deficit: The amount by which the government’s total budget outlays exceeds its total receipts for a fiscal year. —US Senate Budget Committee

In FY 2018 the federal deficit was 19.0 percent of federal spending.

This year, FY 2019, the federal government in its latest budget has estimated that the deficit will be 22.3 percent of federal spending.

 

At the risk of repeating myself - who would ever have believed that America would become the most dangerous country on the planet. Well it undoubtedly has.

 

Wake up! You're living a dream. Next thing you'll be trying to tell me America is a democracy.

Try to dump the group-think syrupy rhetoric and start dealing with reality. Please.

 

GDP doesn't matter a damn in this regard.

It all comes down to the US being able to draw foreign dollars back into the US to keep funding the massive debt that is growing alarmingly year on year. As more and more nations move away from dollars and move, instead, to trading in their respective local currencies to avoid the ever growing US sanctions list, less and less dollars will flow back to the US which means servicing the mountainous debt will become impossible. And the list of countries slowly shifting out of the dollar orbit is growing.

It's a case of US elite hubris manufacturing all their own problems and blindly scheming their own downfall.

Hollywood should make a black comedy about it.

 

Absolutely spot on. It's grand theft on a heroic scale and the only ones left to pick up the pieces will the US taxpayers for the next hundred years ... or more. The elites are very well insulated from the coming crash of the dollar and when the standard of living hits rock bottom - as it will - they will still be in clover.

Writers will one day write about it as the greatest organised criminal plunder in the history of the world.

 

We've been through this before. I'm a Middlesbrough supporter so I'm British.

I'm reasonably well informed about the British political system having spent more than half of my life as an active member of one of the UK political parties. Regardless of which party we're talking about, your allegation seems to be nonsense. For every Boris or Rees-Mogg we have a May, Major or Thatcher. For every Blair we have a Corbyn, Kinnock or Smith.

 

Yeah, I only ever post nonsense - it's why I have well over 4k Likes. Now eff off and don't be so rude. And **** Middlesbrough FC - you write that as if it bestows upon you a badge of honour when it's only losers who feel the need to support a football club.

 

Gosh - what prompted this ? Could it be that "brave Sir Robin" having had his argument crumble once again, sees the need to resort to insults and personal attacks ?

 

I don't mind any kind of insult on this forum except accusations of posting nonsense, because if I don't know enough about something then I don't post on it. So the 'insult and personal attack' came from you by making that very accusation??

 

Blimey, you really do seem to have very thin skin if you think the following is an insult and a personal attack:

I've provided clear examples of people from modest backgrounds who have reached the top of their respective parties. You don't have to be rich, or to have been born rich, to lead one of the UK's major political parties. You also don't need to be part of the party "establishment" either - as Thatcher, Major and Corbyn have shown.

 

But 'rich' is a subjective word isn't it? And I said that those who got into parliament by being voted in wouldn't get far unless they were part of the establishment, not that they needed to be part of the establishment to make it info office. It was tyour 'nonsense' jibe wot got my back up. Also don't tell me Corbyn isn't wealthy, just because he lives in a small house and goes to work on a bike; after all these years on a parliamentary salary and perks it must all be invested somewhere or other.

 

The point that started this little spat was that Donald Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and you claimed that this was necessary to make it into politics.

I pointed out that it didn't seem to be in the US, the subject of the thread - you claimed that I must know nothing about UK politics because according to you it's a closed shop - something I think I have refuted.

No doubt Jeremy Corbyn is comfortably off but that's hardly the point. Your claim is groundless and instead of providing evidence to support it, as usual you pretend to be insulted by a personal attack.

 

Westminster is a closed shop if it's only those 'in the know' or toadies who can get anywhere else than the backbenches. Nor did I pretend to be insulted when you insulted me (think 'nonsense'?) - it wasn't pretend offence it was real offence.

 

Do you ever take a time to get a map and learn some geography? Huh?
Of course you don't because if you did you'd known China must be pressured on the shores to keep it away from coming near to have any control over the East and South China seas.
How do you do that given China has 1.4 billion reasons to expand further towards all directions, Pacific, Indian Ocean, Inner Mongolia, Pakistani shores, Stans of the Central Asia thru Xingjiang, Arctic thru the Bering strait?
A.Diplomacy
B.Cyber attacks
C.Sanctions
D.Military
E.All of the above

China is an eastern power with a gigantic population that is to be fed with sweatshop policies and with bringing fresh new demands (buy orders) from all around the globe in order to keep its ball rolling. In other way to put China must either suck the world's blood or be sucked by the world... Therefore for the sake of the international order, which ironically itself needs to be protected even for China's wellbeing because that's the only way to reach the global demand, China must be kept checked all the time... a way to do it is to be stationed at crucial trade zones...
UK sent 2 carriers there. US owns the region already. French got vessels cruising. All this is to prevent China from expanding southward and controlling the trade routes which are the only instrument at times of peace to be used to balance its power accordingly...
So sitting there and crying about military spendings does not do any good other than parroting some ignorant fascist propaganda generally given rise from Gorky Park's vodka crew...