Our massive defense budget is higher than most country's total budget but it's still just over 4% of the economy

That is one way to dress it up....or down as the case may be.

It still does not excuse the 685 Billion spent this year alone & set to go twice that next year....1.2 TRILLION

In a country that is 13+ trillion in debt & will have to raise its debt ceiling yet again.

While we print ever more Fiat ....600 billion more being distributed to buy our own T bonds as we speak.

Defense Department Total Outlays:

2009 - $636.537 Billion

2010 - $688.041 Billion (Estimated)

2011 - $718.795 Billion (Estimated and requested by the White House)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/defense.pdf

__________________________________________

The Budget deficit for 2011 is projected by the White House to be $1.241 TRILLION.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/tables.pdf

I guess I have to agree with Marksy on this one. Grass roots politics is where it all starts. Like that Mayor, and a few of his underlings, who paid himself 1.5 million a year.

Do you really think it matters who's running what? It seems to me to be a lot larger than that.

Our massive defense budget is higher than most country's total budget but it's still just over 4% of the economy

That is one way to dress it up....or down as the case may be.

It still does not excuse the 685 Billion spent this year alone & set to go twice that next year....1.2 TRILLION

In a country that is 13+ trillion in debt & will have to raise its debt ceiling yet again.

While we print ever more Fiat ....600 billion more being distributed to buy our own T bonds as we speak.

Defense Department Total Outlays:

2009 - $636.537 Billion

2010 - $688.041 Billion (Estimated)

2011 - $718.795 Billion (Estimated and requested by the White House)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/defense.pdf

__________________________________________

The Budget deficit for 2011 is projected by the White House to be $1.241 TRILLION.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/tables.pdf

Absolutely meaningless and you show your ignorance of economics. What is the percent of GDP UK, UK, France, Germany?

Interesting numbers but meaningless. What is the percent debt? US? UK? France? In terms of GDP.

Yes they are interesting as they are quickly getting to be if not already insurmountable.

Folks like to say as you do...."but but but what is the percentage of GDP" as if it make a difference.

As if you have gotten the ceiling of your credit card raised to some insane amount & keep on charging based on your supposed income ......in this environment?

Your income is not set in stone. The GDP in the case of the US was mainly based on consumerism...70% Hows that doing these days?

We are now buying our own debt....Think about that. We are buying it with what?

More of the funny paper that use to be backed by folks like China & Japan buying our debt.

The stickmen of the FED do not even hide in the auctions anymore. They stand in the open

http://www.ny.frb.org/markets/tot_operation_schedule.html

Defense Department Total Outlays:

The Budget deficit for 2011 is projected by the White House to be $1.241 TRILLION.

Yes if you look at my 2nd? post to Koheesti I am including other things

too. Things that by right are defense but set into different line items.

Yes if you single out DOD it will probably be in the 700+ Billion range.

But the truth of it is all the other things I mention INCLUDING the interest on their portion is relevant and attributable to the supposed defense.

Lastly I am not sure why you posted the *projected* 2011 deficit...You do understand the difference between the National debt & the yearly budget deficit dont you?

Or are you saying for you adding the 1.22 Trillion shortfall for 2011 to the National Debt is no problem?

Absolutely meaningless and you show your ignorance of economics. What is the percent of GDP UK, UK, France, Germany?

the ratio debt:GDP is meaningless because GDP itself is in many cases totally meaningless. best examples are tiny tax havens such as Liechtenstein and Luxembourg where GDP, generated by foreign financial investments without any bearing to the country's actual economy, is considered "GDP". the latter is the reason why certain countries or economic areas have a calculated ridiculously high GDP per capita and an extremely low GDP:debt ratio.

by the way, anybody who puts too much importance on GDP shows his ignorance about real economics and just repeats what the economic clowns at universities hammer into the brains of a bunch of future economic clowns.

View Postkoheesti, on 2010-11-17 13:39, said:

Our massive defense budget is higher than most country's total budget but it's still just over 4% of the economy

an "economy" which contains (amongst other ridiculous add-ons) GDP "generated" by the production of weapons and ammunition and the salaries of soldiers deployed in foreign countries. the only proper procedure to evaluate defence spendings of any country is the percentage of that country's revenue (mainly taxes and natural resources). anything else is window dressing, respectively bull².

OH I know you want to bash the US soooo much that the it is like trying to hold in the urge to pee. But you all can't be that dumb?

Do I really have to put it in simplistic terms understandable to a 2nd grader?

Dollars spent on anything are meaningless unless taken as a percent of total income. Suzy goes to a one room school house. They have 20 students. They spend $100 on books. Sally goes to a large school in the city they have 10,000 students. Sally's school spends $40,000 on books.

By your logic Sally's school is spending way too much on books.

It is useless to quote US budget numbers without comparing them to budgets of other countries and that can only be done as a percent of income.

OH I know you want to bash the US soooo much that the it is like trying to hold in the urge to pee. But you all can't be that dumb?

Do I really have to put it in simplistic terms understandable to a 2nd grader?

It is useless to quote US budget numbers without comparing them to budgets of other countries and that can only be done as a percent of income.

You know I mentioned in another thread your pompous diatribes....You called it a writing style & compared it to some irrelevant boring helicopter story.

Rude is called rude same as in post 33 you told chuckd his ignorance of economics??.... but to try & play it off like you know a secret others are to dumb to know is silly when backed by a post such as the one you just wrote.

My post has nothing to do with US bashing & neither does Naam's it does have to do with your lack of knowledge as to what constitutes GDP

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + exports − imports

I assume by your posts your an old retired guy in LOS

I live in the US yet I imagine you have read papers & know what has gone on here in the last few years.

I could care less what a comparison is to other countries it is the demise of the one I live in that I care about.

If this country has created out of thin air trillions in the last year or two & spent it does that in your opinion have an effect on GDP? Note govt spending is part of the GDP calc....DUH...Think that may have an effect on the GDP?

Your talking about dollars spent when in reality it is all DEBT it is being created & spent but is backed by nothing but more DEBT because we now buy our own DEBT with more worthless paper.

So yes go ahead & compare the defense budget...all of it against GDP if you like. But please learn what GDP is & what is involved before calling others ignorant

Then set the puffed up GDP aside & realize the defense waste is still a trillion a year we don't have.

Save your do I need to break it down for you speech....What you need to do is go buy a vowel.

Actually, I think every dollar that the US spends on Defense is cash money that we have. It's other parts of the budget that is being paid for with borrowed money. THOSE are the budget items that should be cut.

OH I know you want to bash the US soooo much that the it is like trying to hold in the urge to pee. But you all can't be that dumb?

Do I really have to put it in simplistic terms understandable to a 2nd grader?

It is useless to quote US budget numbers without comparing them to budgets of other countries and that can only be done as a percent of income.

You know I mentioned in another thread your pompous diatribes....You called it a writing style & compared it to some irrelevant boring helicopter story.

Rude is called rude same as in post 33 you told chuckd his ignorance of economics??.... but to try & play it off like you know a secret others are to dumb to know is silly when backed by a post such as the one you just wrote.

My post has nothing to do with US bashing & neither does Naam's it does have to do with your lack of knowledge as to what constitutes GDP

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + exports − imports

I assume by your posts your an old retired guy in LOS

I live in the US yet I imagine you have read papers & know what has gone on here in the last few years.

I could care less what a comparison is to other countries it is the demise of the one I live in that I care about.

If this country has created out of thin air trillions in the last year or two & spent it does that in your opinion have an effect on GDP? Note govt spending is part of the GDP calc....DUH...Think that may have an effect on the GDP?

Your talking about dollars spent when in reality it is all DEBT it is being created & spent but is backed by nothing but more DEBT because we now buy our own DEBT with more worthless paper.

So yes go ahead & compare the defense budget...all of it against GDP if you like. But please learn what GDP is & what is involved before calling others ignorant

Then set the puffed up GDP aside & realize the defense waste is still a trillion a year we don't have.

Save your do I need to break it down for you speech....What you need to do is go buy a vowel.

1.You don't exist in a vacuum. Economic data is useless unless compared to something else.

2. The only way you can compare expenditures of countries is by some agreed upon form of income.

If not GDP or GNP what income figures would you use?

Anyone who uses raw numbers without percents of something when analyzing economic data is ignorant.

Suzy goes to a one room school house. They have 20 students. They spend $100 on books. Sally goes to a large school in the city they have 10,000 students. Sally's school spends $40,000 on books.

If you think that Suzy's school is being more economically efficient than Sally's school you are ignorant.

I know you would like to discuss GDP as one issue and raw dollar expenditures as a separate issue. Interesting as that may be it is a meaningless discussion.

America spends a lot on defense. The Bahamas does not spend much on defense. So? It is meaningless.

To have any sane person take you seriously you have to quote any budget line item as a percent of total income between two countries or a group of countries. If you don't want to use GDP or GNP what would you like to use?

What is the percent of debt of the US, UK, Germany and France?

If you don't compare the US percent with other countries and quote only US numbers and make a negative comment about them, then that is US bashing.

Sorry but it is.

If you want to be reasonable, and discuss an economic issue and not only bash the US economy good. Compare budget line items or debt to some other countries by percent of income. Like I said use any income measurement that is internationally accepted. Far as I know most stats are quoted in percents of GDP or GNP.

PS I live and work in Thailand and have for the past 6 years. I have a degree in Econ from Michigan State University 1972 and an MA in Education. Took my basic economics courses from Abba Lerner.

Actually, I think every dollar that the US spends on Defense is cash money that we have. It's other parts of the budget that is being paid for with borrowed money. THOSE are the budget items that should be cut.

Take your pick............

This one may give you more options but will not help reduce what you need to find

Also remember that in reality...Things like Homeland security,veterans affairs, National Aeronautics etc... while separated really belongs you know where....

If you want to be reasonable, and discuss an economic issue and not only bash the US economy good. Compare budget line items or debt to some other countries by percent of income. Like I said use any income measurement that is internationally accepted. Far as I know most stats are quoted in percents of GDP or GNP.

PS I live and work in Thailand and have for the past 6 years. I have a degree in Econ from Michigan State University 1972 and an MA in Education. Took my basic economics courses from Abba Lerner.

Condolences....If you need to trot out education & yet continue to claim folks are trying to Bash the Us when they point out obvious flaws in the current monetary policies....What can we say?

Your dogmatic understandings of economics will be of little use to you if you cannot comprehend the creation or debasement of your fiat currency & its role in your holy yardstick...GDP/GNP

Forget it...So how about them republicans eh?

1.You don't exist in a vacuum. Economic data is useless unless compared to something else.

2. The only way you can compare expenditures of countries is by some agreed upon form of income.

If not GDP or GNP what income figures would you use?

Anyone who uses raw numbers without percents of something when analyzing economic data is ignorant.

Suzy goes to a one room school house. They have 20 students. They spend $100 on books. Sally goes to a large school in the city they have 10,000 students. Sally's school spends $40,000 on books.

If you think that Suzy's school is being more economically efficient than Sally's school you are ignorant.

I know you would like to discuss GDP as one issue and raw dollar expenditures as a separate issue. Interesting as that may be it is a meaningless discussion.

America spends a lot on defense. The Bahamas does not spend much on defense. So? It is meaningless.

To have any sane person take you seriously you have to quote any budget line item as a percent of total income between two countries or a group of countries. If you don't want to use GDP or GNP what would you like to use?

What is the percent of debt of the US, UK, Germany and France?

If you don't compare the US percent with other countries and quote only US numbers and make a negative comment about them, then that is US bashing.

Sorry but it is.

If you want to be reasonable, and discuss an economic issue and not only bash the US economy good. Compare budget line items or debt to some other countries by percent of income. Like I said use any income measurement that is internationally accepted. Far as I know most stats are quoted in percents of GDP or GNP.

PS I live and work in Thailand and have for the past 6 years. I have a degree in Econ from Michigan State University 1972 and an MA in Education. Took my basic economics courses from Abba Lerner.

I don't have a degree in economics. Logic alone tells me:

Suzies school is not being more efficient, it is being more extravagant.

On the one hand you compare a budget line item of one country to America's and say it's meaningless, yet on the other hand you say we must compare.

Logic also says that comparing America's gdp to other countries' does not alter the facts of the state of America's indebtedness, as Flying is trying to convey to you. So what if Spain, Ireland, Greece, Iceland etc are up to their eyeballs in debt also?

Simple corner shop bookkeeping: income vs expenditure. Does going in to the red mean anything less if the shop next door is also in the red? No...your shop is still in the schtook.

But if you are going to make comparisons....try comparing the US economy with China, Germany, Australia and New Zealand.......heck, try little old Fiji too.

That is one way to dress it up....or down as the case may be.

It still does not excuse the 685 Billion spent this year alone & set to go twice that next year....1.2 TRILLION

In a country that is 13+ trillion in debt & will have to raise its debt ceiling yet again.

While we print ever more Fiat ....600 billion more being distributed to buy our own T bonds as we speak.

Defense Department Total Outlays:

2009 - $636.537 Billion

2010 - $688.041 Billion (Estimated)

2011 - $718.795 Billion (Estimated and requested by the White House)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/defense.pdf

__________________________________________

The Budget deficit for 2011 is projected by the White House to be $1.241 TRILLION.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/tables.pdf

Absolutely meaningless and you show your ignorance of economics. What is the percent of GDP UK, UK, France, Germany?

And you show your ignorance by not understanding my post was in response to Mr. Flyings erroneous post about the Defense Department Budget. He did not reference the budgeted amounts as a percentage of GDP so it failed to become relevant in my responding post.

He, in fact, claimed the Defense Department budget was scheduled to nearly double in 2011 to $1.2 Trillion, which is in error.

Is that clear enough for you?

If you want to be reasonable, and discuss an economic issue and not only bash the US economy good. Compare budget line items or debt to some other countries by percent of income. Like I said use any income measurement that is internationally accepted. Far as I know most stats are quoted in percents of GDP or GNP.

PS I live and work in Thailand and have for the past 6 years. I have a degree in Econ from Michigan State University 1972 and an MA in Education. Took my basic economics courses from Abba Lerner.

Condolences....If you need to trot out education & yet continue to claim folks are trying to Bash the Us when they point out obvious flaws in the current monetary policies....What can we say?

Your dogmatic understandings of economics will be of little use to you if you cannot comprehend the creation or debasement of your fiat currency & its role in your holy yardstick...GDP/GNP

Forget it...So how about them republicans eh?

US monetary policy does not exist in a vacuum. It simply cannot be discussed without a discussion of other currencies.

You need to have a measure of debt and debt is measured by comparison to income. Income is GDP or GNP.

I don't know how else to say it.

The US has a flawed monetary policy? In comparison to what?

Do you really not understand this concept?

If you only post US numbers alone it has no meaning despite the fact that you think it does.

You complain about debt. OK. What is the UK, German and French debt percent? Is the US higher or lower?

Is a lower US dollar good for the economy or bad? Will the US economy turn around before the next election with a strong dollar or a weak dollar?

Will the Republicans be able to turn around the economy without exports?

Defense Department Total Outlays:

The Budget deficit for 2011 is projected by the White House to be $1.241 TRILLION.

Yes if you look at my 2nd? post to Koheesti I am including other things

too. Things that by right are defense but set into different line items.

Yes if you single out DOD it will probably be in the 700+ Billion range.

But the truth of it is all the other things I mention INCLUDING the interest on their portion is relevant and attributable to the supposed defense.

Lastly I am not sure why you posted the *projected* 2011 deficit...You do understand the difference between the National debt & the yearly budget deficit dont you?

Or are you saying for you adding the 1.22 Trillion shortfall for 2011 to the National Debt is no problem?

My reference to the estimated deficiency for 2011 of $1,l241 Trillion was in response to your somewhat ridiculous claim the Defense Department budget was going to double from $688 Billion (Your figure) to $1.2 Trillion (your figure). Your statement was, and I quote:

"It still does not excuse the 685 Billion spent this year alone & set to go twice that next year....1.2 TRILLION"

Sigh....Yes, I do understand the difference between the national debt and an annual budget deficiency.

The bigger question is do you understand what you wrote in the quoted sentence immediately above this paragraph?

1.You don't exist in a vacuum. Economic data is useless unless compared to something else.

2. The only way you can compare expenditures of countries is by some agreed upon form of income.

If not GDP or GNP what income figures would you use?

Anyone who uses raw numbers without percents of something when analyzing economic data is ignorant.

Suzy goes to a one room school house. They have 20 students. They spend $100 on books. Sally goes to a large school in the city they have 10,000 students. Sally's school spends $40,000 on books.

If you think that Suzy's school is being more economically efficient than Sally's school you are ignorant.

I know you would like to discuss GDP as one issue and raw dollar expenditures as a separate issue. Interesting as that may be it is a meaningless discussion.

America spends a lot on defense. The Bahamas does not spend much on defense. So? It is meaningless.

To have any sane person take you seriously you have to quote any budget line item as a percent of total income between two countries or a group of countries. If you don't want to use GDP or GNP what would you like to use?

What is the percent of debt of the US, UK, Germany and France?

If you don't compare the US percent with other countries and quote only US numbers and make a negative comment about them, then that is US bashing.

Sorry but it is.

If you want to be reasonable, and discuss an economic issue and not only bash the US economy good. Compare budget line items or debt to some other countries by percent of income. Like I said use any income measurement that is internationally accepted. Far as I know most stats are quoted in percents of GDP or GNP.

PS I live and work in Thailand and have for the past 6 years. I have a degree in Econ from Michigan State University 1972 and an MA in Education. Took my basic economics courses from Abba Lerner.

I don't have a degree in economics. Logic alone tells me:

Suzies school is not being more efficient, it is being more extravagant.

On the one hand you compare a budget line item of one country to America's and say it's meaningless, yet on the other hand you say we must compare.

Logic also says that comparing America's gdp to other countries' does not alter the facts of the state of America's indebtedness, as Flying is trying to convey to you. So what if Spain, Ireland, Greece, Iceland etc are up to their eyeballs in debt also?

Simple corner shop bookkeeping: income vs expenditure. Does going in to the red mean anything less if the shop next door is also in the red? No...your shop is still in the schtook.

But if you are going to make comparisons....try comparing the US economy with China, Germany, Australia and New Zealand.......heck, try little old Fiji too.

Apples to apples. Compare the US debt to the G 8 debt as a percent of GDP.

That is one way to dress it up....or down as the case may be.

It still does not excuse the 685 Billion spent this year alone & set to go twice that next year....1.2 TRILLION

In a country that is 13+ trillion in debt & will have to raise its debt ceiling yet again.

While we print ever more Fiat ....600 billion more being distributed to buy our own T bonds as we speak.

Defense Department Total Outlays:

2009 - $636.537 Billion

2010 - $688.041 Billion (Estimated)

2011 - $718.795 Billion (Estimated and requested by the White House)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/defense.pdf

__________________________________________

The Budget deficit for 2011 is projected by the White House to be $1.241 TRILLION.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/tables.pdf

Absolutely meaningless and you show your ignorance of economics. What is the percent of GDP UK, UK, France, Germany?

And you show your ignorance by not understanding my post was in response to Mr. Flyings erroneous post about the Defense Department Budget. He did not reference the budgeted amounts as a percentage of GDP so it failed to become relevant in my responding post.

He, in fact, claimed the Defense Department budget was scheduled to nearly double in 2011 to $1.2 Trillion, which is in error.

Is that clear enough for you?

Yes thank you

My reference to the estimated deficiency for 2011 of $1,l241 Trillion was in response to your somewhat ridiculous claim the Defense Department budget was going to double from $688 Billion (Your figure) to $1.2 Trillion (your figure). Your statement was, and I quote:

"It still does not excuse the 685 Billion spent this year alone & set to go twice that next year....1.2 TRILLION"

Sigh....Yes, I do understand the difference between the national debt and an annual budget deficiency.

The bigger question is do you understand what you wrote in the quoted sentence immediately above this paragraph?

Chuck this is not the 1st time you have had this type of confusion.

It is always due to the same reason of your bull in a china shop approach.

If you read the whole thread you would have seen that I said the whole which is not just the DOD but includes many things

like homeland security & the interest on the previous debts of wars beyond their budgets & even the .....wait....didn't I explain all of this to you already?

Yes...I did in the very post your replying to.

FY 2011 Funding

Request

Allocated to:

549 Pentagon Base Budget (051)

159 Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

25 DoE and Other Defense Related Funding (053/054)

733* Total Defense Related Spending Request for FY 2011

Now why would they expect anyone to take that literally?

Just because they call it TOTAL DEFENSE RELATED SPENDING?

We are not that stupid are we?

What about...

DOD spending $721.3 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations"

FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.

International Affairs $10.1–$54.2 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget

Energy Department, defense-related $20.9 billion

Veterans Affairs $66.2 billion

Homeland Security $54.7 billion

NASA, satellites $3.4–$8.5 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget

Veterans pensions $58.4 billion

Other defense-related mandatory spending $7.5 billion

Interest on debt incurred in past wars $57.7–$228.1 billion Between 23% and 91% of total interest

Total Spending $1.003–$1.223 trillion

1.You don't exist in a vacuum. Economic data is useless unless compared to something else.

2. The only way you can compare expenditures of countries is by some agreed upon form of income.

If not GDP or GNP what income figures would you use?

Anyone who uses raw numbers without percents of something when analyzing economic data is ignorant.

Suzy goes to a one room school house. They have 20 students. They spend $100 on books. Sally goes to a large school in the city they have 10,000 students. Sally's school spends $40,000 on books.

If you think that Suzy's school is being more economically efficient than Sally's school you are ignorant.

I know you would like to discuss GDP as one issue and raw dollar expenditures as a separate issue. Interesting as that may be it is a meaningless discussion.

America spends a lot on defense. The Bahamas does not spend much on defense. So? It is meaningless.

To have any sane person take you seriously you have to quote any budget line item as a percent of total income between two countries or a group of countries. If you don't want to use GDP or GNP what would you like to use?

What is the percent of debt of the US, UK, Germany and France?

If you don't compare the US percent with other countries and quote only US numbers and make a negative comment about them, then that is US bashing.

Sorry but it is.

If you want to be reasonable, and discuss an economic issue and not only bash the US economy good. Compare budget line items or debt to some other countries by percent of income. Like I said use any income measurement that is internationally accepted. Far as I know most stats are quoted in percents of GDP or GNP.

PS I live and work in Thailand and have for the past 6 years. I have a degree in Econ from Michigan State University 1972 and an MA in Education. Took my basic economics courses from Abba Lerner.

I don't have a degree in economics. Logic alone tells me:

Suzies school is not being more efficient, it is being more extravagant.

On the one hand you compare a budget line item of one country to America's and say it's meaningless, yet on the other hand you say we must compare.

Logic also says that comparing America's gdp to other countries' does not alter the facts of the state of America's indebtedness, as Flying is trying to convey to you. So what if Spain, Ireland, Greece, Iceland etc are up to their eyeballs in debt also?

Simple corner shop bookkeeping: income vs expenditure. Does going in to the red mean anything less if the shop next door is also in the red? No...your shop is still in the schtook.

But if you are going to make comparisons....try comparing the US economy with China, Germany, Australia and New Zealand.......heck, try little old Fiji too.

Apples to apples. Compare the US debt to the G 8 debt as a percent of GDP.

Why not the G20?

Go ahead and compare apples to apples. Compare a sour apple with a slightly less or a slightly more sour apple....does it make your apple any less sour? No.

Your apple still has x% acidity and y% sugar. Does the fact of a very low sugar content change when we know that the sugar content of UK apples is lower than US apples? Is your apple sweeter in reality? Sweeter than the other apple, but sour just the same.

Does that make the level of indebtedness any less real?

Reply to Harcourt. Not less real but most of the G 20 countries don't have an economy even as big as California. Hardly seems fair. G 8 seems more reasonable.

This is your first response to Mr. Koheesti's post about Defense spending.

_______________________________________________________

That is one way to dress it up....or down as the case may be.

It still does not excuse the 685 Billion spent this year alone & set to go twice that next year....1.2 TRILLION

In a country that is 13+ trillion in debt & will have to raise its debt ceiling yet again.

While we print ever more Fiat ....600 billion more being distributed to buy our own T bonds as we speak.

_________________________________________________________

This is your second post about Mr. Koheesti's question if Defense spending is really going to double next year.

_________________________________________________________

That is what the projections are.

Not cheap funding these skirmishes

well...I guess they did promise jobs.

The whole homeland security has many facets now.

From satellites, FBI counter terrorism etc...Then of course you have the interest alone

on all the money. Remember...as the debt grows so does the interest.

There is not enough money currency & it is well beyond insane with the amount of IOU's being printed

It is not like printing more gives you 2 nickels for your dime.

The snowball is truly rolling & growing now

_______________________________________________________

This is your third post on Mr. Koheesti's defense spending.

_______________________________________________________

Take your pick............

This one may give you more options but will not help reduce what you need to find

Also remember that in reality...Things like Homeland security,veterans affairs, National Aeronautics etc... while separated really belongs you know where....

_________________________________________________________

Your last post said this:

"Chuck this is not the 1st time you have had this type of confusion.

It is always due to the same reason of your bull in a china shop approach.

If you read the whole thread you would have seen that I said the whole which is not just the DOD but includes many things

like homeland security & the interest on the previous debts of wars beyond their budgets & even the .....wait....didn't I explain all of this to you already?

Yes...I did in the very post your replying to."

_________________________________________________________

Will you please show me where in the post I was replying to that you made these claims charging other ancillary budget items against the DOD?

Spin in the wind all you want. You never made the claim until your last post.

If you want to be reasonable, and discuss an economic issue and not only bash the US economy good. Compare budget line items or debt to some other countries by percent of income. Like I said use any income measurement that is internationally accepted. Far as I know most stats are quoted in percents of GDP or GNP.

PS I live and work in Thailand and have for the past 6 years. I have a degree in Econ from Michigan State University 1972 and an MA in Education. Took my basic economics courses from Abba Lerner.

Condolences....If you need to trot out education & yet continue to claim folks are trying to Bash the Us when they point out obvious flaws in the current monetary policies....What can we say?

Your dogmatic understandings of economics will be of little use to you if you cannot comprehend the creation or debasement of your fiat currency & its role in your holy yardstick...GDP/GNP

Forget it...So how about them republicans eh?

US monetary policy does not exist in a vacuum. It simply cannot be discussed without a discussion of other currencies.

You need to have a measure of debt and debt is measured by comparison to income. Income is GDP or GNP.

I don't know how else to say it.

The US has a flawed monetary policy? In comparison to what?

Do you really not understand this concept?

If you only post US numbers alone it has no meaning despite the fact that you think it does.

You complain about debt. OK. What is the UK, German and French debt percent? Is the US higher or lower?

Is a lower US dollar good for the economy or bad? Will the US economy turn around before the next election with a strong dollar or a weak dollar?

Will the Republicans be able to turn around the economy without exports?

yep! comparison is the only way to go (so i was told). i don't have a degree in economics that's why i ask the resident experts whether my approach is correct or flawed.

Suzie in Milwaukee screws around tuesdays, thursdays and sundays. Nong in Pattaya bends over only on even days but not on public holidays. Kunigunde in Berlin administers blowjobs on rainy or heavily clouded days. all three girls have 'conventional' sex with a frequency that can be compared with that of central american countries.

question: "which country has the highest external debt and lowest defence spending taking Suzie's, Nong's and Kunigunde's action not only into consideration but also by comparing them?"

Will you please show me where in the post

Lordy chuck.....another reading comprehension minutia post?

You quote it & cannot comprehend it?

It does not take a genius to read....

The whole homeland security has many facets now.

From satellites, FBI counter terrorism etc...Then of course you have the interest alone

on all the money. Remember...as the debt grows so does the interest.

And know that those line items are actual line items not titled DOD nor attributed to it...

( wrongly as I have said as they should be in fact but,are kept separate to purposely mislead)

I have since even posted charts that show them as separate pieces of the pie & still you cannot see?

No problem chuck but ....Perhaps read twice & ask once?

If you want to be reasonable, and discuss an economic issue and not only bash the US economy good. Compare budget line items or debt to some other countries by percent of income. Like I said use any income measurement that is internationally accepted. Far as I know most stats are quoted in percents of GDP or GNP.

PS I live and work in Thailand and have for the past 6 years. I have a degree in Econ from Michigan State University 1972 and an MA in Education. Took my basic economics courses from Abba Lerner.

Condolences....If you need to trot out education & yet continue to claim folks are trying to Bash the Us when they point out obvious flaws in the current monetary policies....What can we say?

Your dogmatic understandings of economics will be of little use to you if you cannot comprehend the creation or debasement of your fiat currency & its role in your holy yardstick...GDP/GNP

Forget it...So how about them republicans eh?

US monetary policy does not exist in a vacuum. It simply cannot be discussed without a discussion of other currencies.

You need to have a measure of debt and debt is measured by comparison to income. Income is GDP or GNP.

I don't know how else to say it.

The US has a flawed monetary policy? In comparison to what?

Do you really not understand this concept?

If you only post US numbers alone it has no meaning despite the fact that you think it does.

You complain about debt. OK. What is the UK, German and French debt percent? Is the US higher or lower?

Is a lower US dollar good for the economy or bad? Will the US economy turn around before the next election with a strong dollar or a weak dollar?

Will the Republicans be able to turn around the economy without exports?

yep! comparison is the only way to go (so i was told). i don't have a degree in economics that's why i ask the resident experts whether my approach is correct or flawed.

Suzie in Milwaukee screws around tuesdays, thursdays and sundays. Nong in Pattaya bends over only on even days but not on public holidays. Kunigunde in Berlin administers blowjobs on rainy or heavily clouded days. all three girls have 'conventional' sex with a frequency that can be compared with that of central american countries.

question: "which country has the highest external debt and lowest defence spending taking Suzie's, Nong's and Kunigunde's action not only into consideration but also by comparing them?"

You can make fun of me. I really don't mind. But I am correct.

For example.

Ireland today has a problem. How big is the Irish economy? Can we compare it to the US economy. No, Ireland's economy is about the size of Minnesota. Minnesota is a relatively small agricultural state in the Midwest of America.

How much is Ireland's external debt? Not much really in terms of cash for the US but for Ireland it is a big number. How do I know this? I look at the Economist. Ireland's external debt is 1000% (will it sink the Euro?). Is that bad? The U K's external debt is 416% . Is that bad? The Netherlands is 416%. Austria is 212%. Portugal is 223%.

I think it is fair to say that the above countries have been borrowing a bit too much money.

Now for all those big budget items and the silly wars and all the useless expenditures what is the U S's external debt?

Anybody want to guess? It is 98%.

i am not making fun of you Mark. what i am trying is to add a little fun to defuse the built up tension between participants which might lead, respectively has already lead to personal attacks.

:jap:

Will you please show me where in the post

Lordy chuck.....another reading comprehension minutia post?

You quote it & cannot comprehend it?

It does not take a genius to read....

The whole homeland security has many facets now.

From satellites, FBI counter terrorism etc...Then of course you have the interest alone

on all the money. Remember...as the debt grows so does the interest.

And know that those line items are actual line items not titled DOD nor attributed to it...

( wrongly as I have said as they should be in fact but,are kept separate to purposely mislead)

I have since even posted charts that show them as separate pieces of the pie & still you cannot see?

No problem chuck but ....Perhaps read twice & ask once?

I have read more than twice and you are still wrong in the way you approached this issue. You can spin it anyway you wish but the end result is you claimed the following in your first response to Koheesti:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"It still does not excuse the 685 Billion spent this year alone & set to go twice that next year....1.2 TRILLION"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The discussion centered around the Department of Defense budget at this point in the conversation.

When Koheesti then questioned if the DOD budget was indeed supposed to double you responded with this little gem:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That is what the projections are.

Not cheap funding these skirmishes

well...I guess they did promise jobs.

The whole homeland security has many facets now.

From satellites, FBI counter terrorism etc...Then of course you have the interest alone

on all the money. Remember...as the debt grows so does the interest.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Immediately, and without further explanation, the budget for DOD suddenly and miraculously included Homeland Security, the FBI and satellites, presumably from NASA.

I then made a post reflecting the White House budget request for 2011 along with the actual outlays by the DOD for both 2009 and 2010. This post was made without any editorial comment on my part and was simply my attempt to show what the real budget figures for the DOD were and are.

Your statement that the DOD budget was $685 Billion this year alone and scheduled to go to twice that next year...1.2 Trillion was patently incorrect.

You further compounded your error when Koheesti asked if the budget was really going to double and you replied.."That is what the projections are."

Now you are trying to justify and cloud your responses by throwing in the budgets of other federal agencies such as the FBI, Homeland Security, NASA and God knows how many others.

This discussion was originally about the budget for the Department of Defense alone and not any other agency that might or might not have anything to do with defense.

This is my last post on the topic but you were wrong and all it would have taken was a simple comment from you early on that you misspoke when you said the DOD budget was going to double next year.

Mr. Flying, when you are in a hole, the best advice is to stop digging.

My reference to the estimated deficiency for 2011 of $1,l241 Trillion was in response to your somewhat ridiculous claim the Defense Department budget was going to double from $688 Billion (Your figure) to $1.2 Trillion (your figure). Your statement was, and I quote:

"It still does not excuse the 685 Billion spent this year alone & set to go twice that next year....1.2 TRILLION"

Sigh....Yes, I do understand the difference between the national debt and an annual budget deficiency.

The bigger question is do you understand what you wrote in the quoted sentence immediately above this paragraph?

Chuck this is not the 1st time you have had this type of confusion.

It is always due to the same reason of your bull in a china shop approach.

If you read the whole thread you would have seen that I said the whole which is not just the DOD but includes many things

like homeland security & the interest on the previous debts of wars beyond their budgets & even the .....wait....didn't I explain all of this to you already?

Yes...I did in the very post your replying to.

FY 2011 Funding

Request

Allocated to:

549 Pentagon Base Budget (051)

159 Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

25 DoE and Other Defense Related Funding (053/054)

733* Total Defense Related Spending Request for FY 2011

Now why would they expect anyone to take that literally?

Just because they call it TOTAL DEFENSE RELATED SPENDING?

We are not that stupid are we?

What about...

DOD spending $721.3 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations"

FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.

International Affairs $10.1–$54.2 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget

Energy Department, defense-related $20.9 billion

Veterans Affairs $66.2 billion

Homeland Security $54.7 billion

NASA, satellites $3.4–$8.5 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget

Veterans pensions $58.4 billion

Other defense-related mandatory spending $7.5 billion

Interest on debt incurred in past wars $57.7–$228.1 billion Between 23% and 91% of total interest

Total Spending $1.003–$1.223 trillion

Just so I'm clear on this as I was the first to reply to your defense budget nearly doubling statement...

When you wrote, "It still does not excuse the 685 Billion spent this year alone & set to go twice that next year....1.2 TRILLION" what you meant was that the 685 figure is purely what they call defense, and the 1.2 trillion is defense PLUS the other lines in the budget that you believe should be under Defense? Those are two different things. That's like saying my vacation is twice as expensive this year because last year it cost $1000 (just the plane ticket) and this year cost $2000 (the plane ticket, hotel, food, transport, museums, hookers, souvenirs, etc).

Just so I'm clear on this as I was the first to reply to your defense budget nearly doubling statement...

When you wrote, "It still does not excuse the 685 Billion spent this year alone & set to go twice that next year....1.2 TRILLION" what you meant was that the 685 figure is purely what they call defense, and the 1.2 trillion is defense PLUS the other lines in the budget that you believe should be under Defense? Those are two different things. That's like saying my vacation is twice as expensive this year because last year it cost $1000 (just the plane ticket) and this year cost $2000 (the plane ticket, hotel, food, transport, museums, hookers, souvenirs, etc).

Yes basically I should have given you the true amount for the first year as well.

Just because Gates & his cronies think you are stupid enough to believe those things are not DOD if they list them separately in the budget does not mean I think you are stupid.

I know you can handle the truth & should have given this years truth to you right off. I know you can look at that list of next years expenses & see clearly they are in fact DOD...

These are not things I believe should be under DOD....They are created by it & listed separate..... terrorism & "other" defense related expenses. Also the interest is not created out of thin air. It is the result from these expenses....period. Everything that is listed is Defense.

( They are also on this years sheet) If that is not DOD what is??

Now chucke is another story...he cant handle the truth

So keep this to yourself

For example.

Ireland today has a problem. How big is the Irish economy? Can we compare it to the US economy. No, Ireland's economy is about the size of Minnesota. Minnesota is a relatively small agricultural state in the Midwest of America.

How much is Ireland's external debt? Not much really in terms of cash for the US but for Ireland it is a big number. How do I know this? I look at the Economist. Ireland's external debt is 1000% (will it sink the Euro?). Is that bad? The U K's external debt is 416% . Is that bad? The Netherlands is 416%. Austria is 212%. Portugal is 223%.

I think it is fair to say that the above countries have been borrowing a bit too much money.

Now for all those big budget items and the silly wars and all the useless expenditures what is the U S's external debt?

Anybody want to guess? It is 98%.

A wealthy English friend was telling me he was concerned about the size of the US debt. I told him we are a rich country and it isn't as bad as it looks to these smaller countries. For example, if something happened and I needed ten thousand dollars, that would (to put in polite terms) put a real hurt on me financially because I'm poor by expat standards. I asked how much it would hurt him if he needed that amount. He replied, "I see what you mean".