If the US had spent as much on defense as the UK since 1950, the total gov debt would be $3.7 trillion

That 20% number only if your don't count things like Veterans Pensions - 58 billion Veterans Affairs - 66 billion Homeland Security 54 billion Interest (between 57-228 depending on how you do the math) Energy Department 21 billionAdd that up and most people come up with a number between 35-55%. Throw in things like medicare didn't exist under JFK and we are spending more of our discretionary income on defense than ever before.

Bobby1 wrote:

50% of federal spending was on defense under JFK, today it's 20% of federal spending.

Sure you can make up your own numbers or believe other people but if you want facts, look it up yourself, it's 20%.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

TCB, I totally agree. As someone who works as an international policy analyst, I've tried to gauge the issue of American militarism from a security perspective, an economic perspective, and a social perspective. The fact of the matter is that for our capitalist system to work (and I believe that it can), we need to be investing economic and human resources in something far more sustainable than making war. If we look at our economy as a whole (from the people collecting welfare to the shrinking middle class to the very rich) military spending is bad for business. Obviously, it benefits some people (and can benefit them immensely in terms of financial gain). But the average engineer at Lockheed Martin who makes a decent salary, pays taxes, etc. could easily use his/her skills in a much more sustainable and productive manner were there jobs available or greater incentives to be entrepreneurial.

As you point out, the same is true with soldiers. I just counted up the number of U.S. soldiers killed in the Afghanistan theatre of Operation Enduring Freedom and it looks like the total casualties since 2001 will top 1,300 before the end of the year. The number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq is now over 4,400 (though the number killed per year has dropped dramatically over the past two years as the conflict has de-escalated). Still, 5,700 American lives is quite a lot of talent and productivity lost. Surely, no one with half a brain can argue that militarism is good in the long term for our economy or society as a whole.

Certainly we need to have a defense budget and we need to prevent terrorism, but the current state of affairs is hugely problematic for future social and economic development, particularly when we are still helping to breed hatred abroad. And anyone who takes the time to read David Kilcullen will realize that fostering development abroad and protecting vulnerable populations are far more successful strategies than blatant militarism.

Economystic wrote:

Our economy is so large we can afford it.

We've also built a huge part of our economy around defense.

What!

The US National Debt in 1970 was $380 Billion with a “B” and represented 37.6% of GDP.

In contrast, the National Debt in 2009 grew to $12.8 Trillion with a “T” and represents 90.4% of GDP.

The debt is expected to eclipse 100% of GDP in 2011…maybe 2010.

Another way to view your debt is to realize that you have replaced growth of real commerce with growth of real debt.

How much does your economy have to grow in order to balance with debt?

Nobody knows, because you haven’t had enough growth to pay the bills since 1969. Think about it - the best growth year that you’ve ever had since 1969…wasn’t enough.

I’m sorry to bang on - but in 1970 the U.S. produced all of your oil needs and exported crude.

Today, you import about 70% of your 20 million barrels per day of usage.

In 1970, you had a foreign trade surplus; today you have a trade deficit to the tune of $700 Billion annually.

That’s nearly $2 Billion per day.

In 1970, you were the largest creditor nation on earth.

Today you are by far the largest debtor nation on earth.

Yet you still manage to maintain such ludicrous extravagances like having a navy that’s as large as the combined navies of the next 13 most powerful countries.

Doesn’t make sense.

I'm in Russia right now and, trust me, we would not be speaking Russian. One thing Americans, in their need for an enemy, don't understand is how much this country is in shambles and how much it was during most of the 20th century.

Reading these posts reminds me of the one thing I did remember from econ1001. "Economics is not an exact science."

In the 70's the US was the premier economic power. China was nonexistent. Japan and W. Germany's economies were in their infancy. And as stated above by someone who is in the former USSR their economy was in shambles. It was easy to look good when you had no real competition. Capitalism in America, like all things, is cyclic. It had its time and like everything else it's dying. You can argue we should have done this or that or the other. The facts are 10 years ago or 10 years from now we would be in the same position we are today. Capitalism always converges to the same end. It was good while it lasted. It will continue to be good for some for years to come. But for the most part its not going to be like it was. Prosperity as we know it, FOR ALL, is over. Stop listening to the pun dents making millions telling you it OBAMA or BUSH or CLINTON fault. It was a good ride and like every good ride, "da fun come to an end sometime."

So if we divided the DOD budget into 2 parts defense and other, you would say that we halved defense spending? Or you think the Veterans benefits and Pensions have nothing to do with defense spending? Are they welfare programs that you want to cut?

Bobby1 wrote:

Sure you can make up your own numbers or believe other people but if you want facts, look it up yourself, it\'s 20%.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

luv2run wrote:

Now calculate the debt if we had stopped social security and never instituted "Great Society" programs.

I bet we would be in the black.

.

Wow. You sure don't know what you are talking about. Social Security has run a surplus every year of its existence

WWRD... wrote:

And we'd all be speaking Russian...end of thread you ignoramous...

.

You think the average american could learn Russian?

Dear Alf or should I say Idiot,

The mere fact that you used 12.8 T as your number makes everything else you said null and removes you from any discussion on the matter. If you don't know enough to understand marketable debt (literally half of that or less) vs. the big number that gets used to scare people, then you don't know anything. ZERO economists use that number and all news reporters use that number. I'm sorry but all of you here are giving these numbers without a slice of knowledge about fiat currencies and the operational realities of domestic or international economies. Please stop spreading stupid to more people.

yeayeayea wrote:

Yes, and we would be speaking Russian right now.

'cause we needed all of those tanks and bombs for that war we fought against the Russians, right?

Actually last year was in the red. Thank god we have that trust fund.:)

Not Sure wrote:

luv2run wrote:

Now calculate the debt if we had stopped social security and never instituted "Great Society" programs.

I bet we would be in the black.

.

Wow. You sure don't know what you are talking about. Social Security has run a surplus every year of its existence

[quote]asdfasdfasdasdfasdfasdfa wrote:

Actually last year was in the red. Thank god we have that trust fund.:)

May 12, 2009 – If there was a surprise in the annual report on the financial health of the Social Security Trust Funds by the Social Security Board of Trustees, it was that the economic downturn has only moved the date that costs will exceed tax revenues forward by one year. This is now projected to happen in 2016

You do realize there is a difference in being in te red in 2009 and the 2009 annual report saying Soc Sec was projected to be in the red in 2016?

As far as the trust, there is none. All that excess Soc Sec money for 70 plus years has gone into the general budget to pay for wars

Sorry it is 2010 that has the shortfall caused by the 2009 filing.

Oh there is a trust fund of IOUs. Those IOUs are as valuable as any other treasury. Unfortunately paying back those IOUs will cripple the rest of the country. And when the person who owes you the money can change the payout rules, all sorts of fun stuff can happen. The good news is the SS can be fixed with a small tax hike (~1-2%) or a few other tweaks.

Now medicare on the other hand is hopeless.

Not Sure wrote:

[quote]asdfasdfasdasdfasdfasdfa wrote:

Actually last year was in the red. Thank god we have that trust fund.:)

May 12, 2009 – If there was a surprise in the annual report on the financial health of the Social Security Trust Funds by the Social Security Board of Trustees, it was that the economic downturn has only moved the date that costs will exceed tax revenues forward by one year. This is now projected to happen in 2016

You do realize there is a difference in being in te red in 2009 and the 2009 annual report saying Soc Sec was projected to be in the red in 2016?

As far as the trust, there is none. All that excess Soc Sec money for 70 plus years has gone into the general budget to pay for wars

I await your reply admitting you were incorrect about Soc Sec being in the red in 2009.

As far as medicare, there is a very quick fix for the high cost of health care for all age groups in the USA. Kick the for profit insurance companies out of the business.

TV Lies wrote:

Dear Alf or should I say Idiot,

The mere fact that you used 12.8 T as your number makes everything else you said null and removes you from any discussion on the matter. If you don't know enough to understand marketable debt (literally half of that or less) vs. the big number that gets used to scare people, then you don't know anything. ZERO economists use that number and all news reporters use that number. I'm sorry but all of you here are giving these numbers without a slice of knowledge about fiat currencies and the operational realities of domestic or international economies. Please stop spreading stupid to more people.

Does anybody understand all that gobbledegook?

You should check out what your own Treasury Department have to say when they report to Congress.

US debt will top $13.6 trillion this year - to be accurate, at this moment - $13,464,896,653,374.11 - about 95% of GDP

In fact, the International Monetary Fund recently explicitly warned that the US national debt is soon to exceed 100 percent of GDP.

Ironically, the Fund also cautioned that if nothing is done that figure will rise dramatically in the years ahead and the amount the US needed to reduce its structural deficits was greater than that of Greece - the basket case of Europe!

Moody's Investors Service projects that debt service could hit 22.4% of revenue by 2013 - and the US would lose its AAA rating.

A mere one per-cent decrease in GDP can lose the economy one million jobs and servicing that debt represents rather more than that.

Here’s a fellow countryman’s take on the situation - I’ve always considered he had his head screwed on straight.

blue dawgs wrote:

The defense industry keeps millions of people employed with well-paying jobs. One of the benefits of the industry itself is to maintain a strong industrial base in the USA.

Remember, it's the one industry that DOESN'T OUTSOURCE.

So why don't we just employ everyone in the military and then the we'll have no economic problems. You're a genius!!

This whole thread is full of dumb. Why is the US in Afghanistan? 9/11. It's a just war, if there is such a thing. And yes, let's just give the entire defense industry and military (two separate, although often overlapping, entities) jobs somewhere else... oh wait, who would employ them? Probably not the domestic auto industry. Or the housing industry. It's not quite that simple.

It was the Cold War, people. The USSR was clearly expansionist (Afghanistan, Eastern Europe, etc). They had nukes too. Just because their economy sucked doesn't mean they couldn't have thrown a few our way and blown up half of the country. And yeah, Germany's and Japan's economies grew quite a bit while they didn't focus on defense-largely due to the Marshall Plan. Anybody want to run some numbers on how big the deficit would be if we didn't bail all of Europe out and rebuild Japan after World War II?

A just war?

What nonsense.

It wasn’t the Taliban flying those airliners - and it certainly wasn’t Iraqis.

Logically you should have invaded Saudi- Arabia.

Taking the cost of the war in Iraq, you could have given every man, woman and child in Iraq $25,000 each and still have change.

Instead of the nightmarish, anti-American, radicalised Islamic cess-pit it is today - you’d have had the most enthusiastic pro-American country in the Mid-East.

The Marshall Plan cost less than 5% of America’s GDP at that time.

And Germany was a recipient of a small proportion of that aid, Japan none.

In fact, we in Britain received more than any other country.

Germany and Japan pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps metaphorically speaking.

It was in America’s interest at that time to aid countries like Italy and France anyway as they had large communist parties and it was touch and go whether they actually became communist states.

Had they, Germany would have followed suit and it certainly wasn’t in America’s interest (or ours) to have a Europe totally communist.