Not to mention that GDP is not at all the same as cash-on-hand or government tax receipts. You could have a whopping GDP, very low tax rates and a spend thrift government and wind up with a bankrupt government and a tumbling currency. Likewise, you could have the opposite.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Since you are the economic guru of the forum, I have a quick question.

If it is so obvious that we are broke, why are people still lending us money?

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

For the same reason a credit card company will allow you to go into debt and spend far more than you have on hand.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Because they believe it is likely that you will be able to pay it back?

Irrelevant even if true, since I was not attempting to prove that we are 1st. Just that we are significantly ahead of Russia. All figures, from every angle, support that conclusion.

So why are they attempting to counter it if it is so obviously useless?

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Right, but with interest. Why borrow money only to pay back 200% of what you owe if you have money in the bank?

__________________
America is a melting pot, the people at the bottom get burned while all the scum floats to the top.
- - - Charlie King

And you think that make sense? The US military budget has risen 30% under Bush back to the cold war levels and it's not being spent on defence against an enemy? And you don't think that's wasteful?

So while the US has conventional forces in Iraq that are short on equipment the US government is lashing out on a missile defence system against "who precisely"?

Um...yeah. I thought that was obvious.

Why would they lend us money if they believed we would not be able to pay them back, including interest? That makes no sense.

Stekim likes to imply that we are broke, but obviously our CREDITORS do not believe we are broke. If they did, they would not lend us money.

No argument here. But that is not the issue. The issue is about what we can afford militarily relative to what Russia can afford. Obviously we can afford a lot more. That was my point.

The fact that the enemy doesnt have missiles at the moment doesnt mean they wont have them in the future. That seems obvious to me.

ICBMs are not magic; they are technology. It is only a matter of time before our enemies get the knowledge and resources to build them (North Korea anyone?).

Yes.

It is being spent on defense against an enemy. Your assumption is wrong.

No. The alternatives are worse.

I am unwilling to assume they are too stupid to figure out ICBM technology, as you seem willing to do.

Defenses dont "lash out" against anyone. They are for Defense.

Their purpose is primarily to defend against rogue missile attack from nations such as Iran and North Korea. And any other rogue nations that might obtain the technology.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Lash out English colloquialism meaning to spend copiously.

Not as in "lash out" to hit in anger.

[quote]The USA never includes many of the actual costs of defense spending when it calculates the "Military" budget. Here are some numbers from 2002. We can be sure that they have increased since then.

Our monies are spent on US defense contractors who target mostly phantom threats and those real ones that we have created for ourselves.

How does that change what I just said?

I do not agree that they are phantom threats.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?